Allahabad High Court Upholds Rejection Of Plea Seeking 1% Senior Citizens' Quota In NEET Admissions

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld a single-judge order rejecting a plea seeking 1% reservation or a special quota for eligible senior citizens in admissions to MBBS and other medical courses through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the special appeal filed by Ashok Bahar while observing that the proposed reservation was a matter to be considered by the competent legislature or the concerned government.

The Bench observed that no provision currently provides for the proposed reservation and that the petitioner's representation did not involve an enforceable right warranting a writ of mandamus.

"The representation seeking reservation for eligible senior citizens in the matter of admissions to M.B.B.S. and other medical courses is not based on any such right per se", the Court observed.

Bahar had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to consider his representation and take an appropriate policy decision on providing 1% reservation or a special quota for eligible senior citizens in admissions to MBBS and other medical courses through NEET.

He had also sought a direction to the authorities to decide his pending representation dated June 23, 2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period.

The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the matter concerned policy and declined to issue the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner.

Challenging that order, Bahar moved the present intra-court appeal.

Counsel for the National Testing Agency submitted before the Division Bench that NTA is only the examining body and is governed by the laws and policies prevailing with regard to admissions to MBBS Courses.

The Bench was apprised that, as of now, no such provision exists as sought by the appellant and that the matter anyway falls within the purview of the competent legislature or the concerned government.

The Bench further noted in its order that the representation filed by the petitioner was not a statutory representation but had been submitted to fulfill the prerequisites for maintaining a writ petition seeking mandamus.

"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant can pursue the matter with the executive or the legislature, as the case may be but there is no question of issuing a mandamus as prayed for in the facts and circumstances of the case", the Bench remarked.

The Court added that whether the executive or legislature should prescribe an age limit for admission to these courses was a matter for them to decide, unless one had already been prescribed.

Finding no error in the Single Judge's judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.