Merit-based admission processes cannot be bypassed for individual applicants, protecting the rights of all candidates involved.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, after completing her MBBS undergraduate course and MD Pathology, applied for DM Clinical Haematology in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-Super Speciality 2024 (NEET SS), 2024 conducted on 30.03.2025 and obtained rank 8022. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not get an allotment even in the mop up round. While so, the petitioner came to understand that a seat for the course of DM Clinical Haematology had fallen vacant at the 3^rd respondent institute due to the withdrawal of a candidate who was allotted the seat in the mop up round. Immediately, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation to the 2^nd respondent vide email dated 12.08.2025 and followed it up with Exhibit P3 dated 19.09.2025. As there was no response from the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Madras and the same was disposed of by Ext.P4 order dated 15.09.2025 directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of two weeks.

2. As the direction was not complied within the time granted, the petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case before the High Court of Madras. As things stood thus, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences issued notification for conducting the NEET-2025, the registration of which was to commence on 05.11.2025 and the examination scheduled on 26.12.2025 and 27.12.2025. On enquiry with the 3^rd respondent institute, it was informed that one seat in DM Clinical Haematology is not filled up due to non-reporting of the candidate. Hence this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

“i.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to issue order of allotment to the petitioner in the available vacant seat of DM Clinical Haematology in the 3^rd respondent institute.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not declare the available seat of DM Clinical Haematology for NEET SS 2024 as lapsed seat.“

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as one seat in a Super Speciality course is lying vacant, the 2^nd respondent ought to have considered the petitioner for allotment pursuant to Ext.P4 order. If no allotment is made to the vacant seat, it will lapse if the admission is not carried out before the NEET SS 2025 examination. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court inKevin Joy and Ors. v. The Government of India and Ors. /b>.[MANU/SCOR/51951/2023] to contend that even if the last date fixed for allotment is over, this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 can direct allotment to be made for filling up the vacant seat. In support of this argument the decision of the High Court of Madras in Ajitha and Ors. v. The Under Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and Ors. /b> [MANU/TN/4168/2025] is also pressed into service.

4. Learned DSGI appearing for the Medical Counselling Committee contended that no allotment can be made in favour of the petitioner on a nomination basis as the same would amount to deviation from the merit based allotment process and would adversely affect the rights of other participating candidates. It is submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the High Court of Madras, an order was passed by the competent authority with the approval of the 2^nd respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for allotment to the vacancy in the 3^rd respondent institute.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the National Medical Commission contended that availability of vacancies is no justification for directing allotments to be made in deviation of the pu