104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:26.02.2026 NAVYA SINGH ....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 & 4-Union of India.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl., Standing Counsel with Mr. Dhruv Chowfla, Junior Panel Counsel for respondents No.2 & 5-U.T., Chandigarh.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner applied for admission to the MD (Psychiatry) course on the basis of the marks secured in the NEET-PG Test. She also participated in the counselling process and was allotted a seat in MD (Psychiatry) at Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. This allocation was made during the counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she has deposited the fee, she is not being permitted to pursue the course by the concerned college.

3. Taking cognizance of the grievance, we called upon the respondents to clarify the facts.

4. An affidavit has been filed by respondents No.2 and 5 stating that there were, in all, four seats available in the concerned stream in the college. One of the candidates selected in the earlier round of counselling was Dr. Suparna Goyal. She reported for joining on 22.12.2025, however, this fact was not updated online by her. The concerned candidate continued with her course and was regularly attending classes. It was later realized by the college that her reporting had not been updated online and, as a result, the seat was shown as vacant in the next round of counselling, against which the petitioner was admitted.

5. The stand of the respondents is that since the admission offered to the petitioner was on account of an inadvertent error, she cannot be permitted to continue.

6. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner acted with due diligence and, on the strength of her merit, was allotted a seat in the MD (Psychiatry) course. The petitioner has also deposited the fee. There is no apparent fault attributable to her.

7. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is not permitted to pursue her course, she would suffer irreparable loss, particularly as, in view of the counselling process, she would be ineligible to take part in the next round of counselling.

8. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the equities arising in favour of the parties, we called upon the respondents to clarify whether any seat in the concerned course, i.e., MD (Psychiatry), is available in the college or not.

9. We are informed by learned counsel for the respondent- College that one seat in the State quota has fallen vacant due to the resignation of Dr. Anuj Mittal, however, this seat is to be diverted to the stray round, where fresh counselling would take place.

10. If that be so, we find that the person who would be considered for admission in the stray round is quite likely to be lower in merit than the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has already been offered admission and has deposited the fee. Neither the petitioner’s eligibility nor her merit position is in question. The petitioner is otherwise higher in rank, and if this Court does not come to her aid, she would suffer for no fault on her part. We find that equity clearly stands in favour of the petitioner.

11. Once that is so, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to ensure that the State quota seat vacated on account of the resignation of Dr. Anuj Mittal shall not be included in the stray round and that the petitioner shall be adjusted against such vacant seat.

12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA]

JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR]

JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2026 Rahul Joshi

1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether Reportable Yes/No