NEET | Debarring Candidate Who Vacates Allotted Medical Seat From Next Session's Admission Process Is Valid: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Government Order debarring a candidate who leaves a medical seat before completing the course, from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.The Court held that while considering the rights of a candidate seeking to vacate an allotted seat, the rights of another candidate who was denied that seat cannot be lost sight of.The Government...
The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Government Order debarring a candidate who leaves a medical seat before completing the course, from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.
The Court held that while considering the rights of a candidate seeking to vacate an allotted seat, the rights of another candidate who was denied that seat cannot be lost sight of.
The Government Order dated 26th June 2024 abolished recovery of seat-leaving bond money or penalty in medical and dental colleges in the State. In its place, on a recommendation of the National Medical Commission, it provided that a candidate leaving before completing the course shall be debarred from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.
Petitioner sat for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG-2026) and wished to join the counselling that followed. He stood restrained because he had taken admission the previous year in King George Medical University, a Government medical college, on the strength of NEET-UG-2025. Having scored better in his fresh attempt, he hoped for a seat in a college he preferred, and challenged the Government Order dated 26th June 2024 as ultra vires articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
He relied on the Orissa High Court decision in Dr. Satyabrata Kanungo v. State of Odisha, striking down a bar on selection for three subsequent postgraduate sessions as violative of article 14, and the Bombay High Court decision in Miss Maithilee Tukaram Kadam v. The State of Maharashtra, reading down a two-year ineligibility clause as an unreasonable restriction on articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
The State submitted that the order had been issued after due consideration and was being adhered to.
The Court noted two consequences of the petitioner obtaining the admission he sought: he would lose a year, and the vacated seat would lapse. It observed that the views petitioner relied on proceeded from the standpoint of the petitioners before those courts, leaving the second consequence unaddressed. It held that if the challenge were to succeed, an aspiring student earlier denied that seat would suffer a violation of his own rights on the seat being vacated and rendered lapsed.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,
“A candidate, just because he or she does not qualify in the competitive exam cannot be seen to have put in any less effort. As aforesaid, the constitutional rights are applicable to all and article 14 guarantees fairness. We are not inclined to lose site of the unseen deprived candidate, to uphold constitutional rights of the candidate before us.”
The order having been issued keeping in view the mental health of candidates admitted through NEET counselling, the Court held this necessarily takes in those who sat the examination but secured no allotment. It observed that 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.
The Court also found that the special leave petition against the Orissa judgment had been dismissed as infructuous, the question of law being kept open in view of Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust v. Medical Council of India, which the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari read as barring students already admitted from vacating seats after the second round of counselling, to prevent seat blocking.
Recording its disagreement with the views relied upon by the petitioner, the Court held,
“It cannot be said, a candidate denied a seat on evaluation of better results achieved by other candidates, if allotted a seat, would not be able to successfully complete the course and obtain the degree. Such a candidate stands denied because there are less seats than the number of candidates. It follows, there has been consistently deterrents sought to be imposed so that a seat allotted does not get vacated subsequently, for it to lapse. Such wastage cannot be seen as fair treatment to the deprived candidates.”
Accordingly , the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658