##PAGE1##

$~24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19741/2025

LAXMI CHANDRAVANSI HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL

COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Debopriyo Moulik and Mr.

Krishna Kant Gothwal, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Anshula Bakhru, SPC with Mr.

Zuber Ali and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocates

for UOI.

Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, SPC for UOI.

Mr. Kumar Prashant, Advocate for R2.

Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Mr. Parmod Kumar

Vishnoi, Ms. Shreyas Balaji and Ms. Chand

Kapoor, Advocates for R3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 24.12.2025

CM APPL. 82456/2025

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 19741/2025

3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order, or direction directing the Respondents to reconsider the issue of

reducing the qualifying percentile for admission to UG [BHMS] and PG

W.P.(C) 19741/2025 Page 1 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:23:31

[MD (Hom.)] courses for the academic year 2025-26, based on the data of

vacant seats and in line with the decision taken in the joint meeting dated

04.11.2025 between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3;

b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order, or direction directing the Respondents to reconsider the issue of

reducing the qualifying percentile for admission to UG [BHMS] and PG

[MD (Hom.)] courses for the academic year 2025-26, based on the data of

vacant seats and reducing the percentile by 25 percentile points for

admission for academic year 2025 – 26;

c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order, or direction directing the Respondents to extend the cut-off date for

admissions for the academic year 2025-26 to a suitable future date to

enable further rounds of counselling after the reduction

of percentile;

d. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Impugned

Communication bearing Ref. No. 1/1/2025-AACCC dated 10.12.2025

issued by Respondent No. 2.”

4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned communication dated

10.12.2025, whereby Respondents have withdrawn the request for reduction

in percentile for UG courses for academic year 2025-26. Petitioner asserts

that in a joint meeting held between Respondents No.2 and 3 on 04.11.2025,

it was unanimously decided that prescribed minimum NEET percentile score

could be reduced by 10 percentile across categories for academic year 2025-

26 for UG BHMS Course, which was in line with decision taken in previous

years, owing to the fact that significant number of seats remain vacant each

year. The recommendation was in light of the fact that a total of 5,453 seats

were vacant for UG course in Homeopathy and the recommendation was

sent for approval to Respondent No.1 on 06.11.2025. It is stated that in the

Petitioner college 58 seats are vacant as against permitted 60 seats.

5. Issue notice.

6. Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective

Respondents.

W.P.(C) 19741/2025 Page 2 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 19:23:31

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3, on

instructions, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned

communication dated 10.12.2025, which is based on the fact that position of

vacant seats changed after the recommendation was made and consequently,

it was decided not to reduce the percentile score for UG courses for

academic year 2025-26.

8. It is Petitioner’s own case that the recom