Back
upholds debarring NEET candidate who vacates medical seat from next admission process
The has upheld a Government Order that debars a candidate who vacates an allotted medical seat from participating in the admission process of the subsequent academic session. A Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh dismissed a petition by Rohan Yadav, who sought to challenge the order after securing better marks in NEET-UG 2026 and hoping to move from to a more preferred college.
A Tale of Two Candidates
Rohan Yadav had taken admission at (a government medical college) after succeeding in NEET-UG 2025. Determined to improve his prospects, he sat for NEET-UG 2026 and secured a higher score. He then wished to vacate his existing seat and participate in the fresh counseling round for a seat in a college of his choice. However, a Government Order dated stood in his way. The order, issued on the recommendation of the , abolished the earlier system of recovering and instead introduced a : any candidate leaving a course before completion would be barred from the admission process of the next academic session.
The Challenged Government Order
The Government Order stated it was made
"keeping in view the
of candidates admitted through NEET counseling."
It replaced the financial penalty with a prohibition on participating in the following year's admission. The petitioner argued that this violated his
under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
, as it prevented him from pursuing higher education in his preferred institution.
Arguments and
, counsel for the petitioner, relied on two High Court judgments. The in Dr. Satyabrata Kanungo v. State of Odisha (2016) a similar three-year for postgraduate medical courses as unreasonable and violative of . The in Miss Maithilee Tukaram Kadam v. State of Maharashtra (2017) a two-year , calling it an on the under (1)(g) and the under . The petitioner contended that the should follow these .
The State, represented by Standing Counsel and for the , opposed the petition. They argued that the Government Order was issued after due consideration and was necessary to prevent and maintain discipline in the admission process.
Court's Reasoning: The
The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had worked hard and improved his rank. However, it noted two consequences of granting his request: he would lose a year, and the seat he vacated would lapse. The court observed that the Orissa and Bombay judgments had focused only on the rights of the candidates before them, without considering the rights of the "" – the aspiring medical student who would have been denied that seat.
The court held that the of all candidates must be balanced. A candidate who fails to secure a seat in a competitive exam cannot be said to have put in any less effort. The Government Order was designed to protect the of all candidates, including those who did not get an allotment. The court stated:
"We are not inclined to lose site of the , to uphold of the candidate before us."
The bench also referred to the 's directive in Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust v. (2017) and the subsequent judgment in State of U.P. v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari (2025). These decisions emphasized that after the second round of counseling, students who have already taken admission should not be allowed to vacate their seats, in order to prevent and ensure .
Key Quotes from the Judgment
-
"A candidate, just because he or she does not qualify in the competitive exam cannot be seen to have put in any less effort."
-
"Such wastage cannot be seen as fair treatment to the deprived candidates."
-
"The petitioner could have waited out the academic year to make a better attempt, rather than take admission and then seek to vacate the seat."
Verdict: Petition Dismissed
The High Court concluded that the Government Order was a reasonable against and did not violate . It held that the views of the Orissa and Bombay High Courts were distinguishable, as they did not address the issue of the lapsed seat. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the provision for candidates who vacate their seats after taking admission.
This decision reinforces the importance of discipline in the medical admission process and sends a clear message that candidates cannot treat admissions as a without consequences. The court has prioritized the collective interest of the medical education system and the rights of all aspiring candidates over the individual desire to upgrade.
