[NEET-SS 2024-25] Will Open Pandora's Box: Madras High Court Rules Against Courts Permitting Mop-Up Counselling After Scheduled Date

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that allowing such violation of schedules would open a Pandora's box and defeat the whole purpose of fixing timelines for admission.

“As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the Apex Court in umpteen number of judgments held that the schedule of counselling must be adhered to strictly. If violation of schedule is permitted and extension of time is granted, it will amount to opening a pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule will be defeated and that extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any other justification,” the court said.

The bench also noted that though the founding fathers of the Constitution did not place any limitation on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the schedule for counselling and the last date of admission were prescribed by Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2025 and the courts could interfere in case of illegality only when the last date of admission was not over. The court added that when the last date of admission is over, the parties had to work out their remedy by approaching the Apex Court, which would decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the National Medical Commission, Director Geneal of Health Service, and the Medical Counselling Committee against the order of a single judge, by which the court had directed the Director General and the Counselling Committee to conduct additional mop-up counselling and complete the admission process for NEET SS 2024-25.

Challenging this order, the authorities submitted that the schedule of counselling had to be strictly adhered to in view of the provisions in Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment) Regulation, 2025. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others, the authorities argued that once the last date was over, no direction could be sought from the court. It was also submitted that even as per previous judicial precedents, even in appropriate cases, the power to order additional rounds of counselling was only reserved for the Supreme Court.

The original petitioners, who had filed the plea for being considered for mop-up counselling, argued that the seats had become available and vacant only due to the fault committed by the Central Counselling Agency or the State Counselling Agency. It was submitted that the vacancy had arisen before the last date, and if the State conducted counselling before the date or included it in the All India Quota, there would not have been a need to approach the court.

The private respondents also argued that it was nowhere held that the High Courts could not use their extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant appropriate directions for additional rounds of counselling. Thus, arguing that the single judge's order was in light of exceptional circumstances, they sought for dismissing the appeal.

The court noted that as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashish Ranjan case, if any direction is issued by High Courts for counselling after the last date of admission is over, it would be violative of the Supreme Court's order.

The court further noted that even though single judge had placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Kevin Joy and others v. The Government of India, where the court had allowed additional counselling, the court had also said that the case should not be taken as a precedent.

Thus, the court concluded that if the parties had any grievance, they should have approached the Supreme Court for appropriate directions and not the High Court. Noting that the single judge's order was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. A R. L. Sundaresan Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. N. Sivaprakash SCGSC

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. V. Balasubramaniam Senior Counsel for Mr. Vikram Veerasamy, Mrs. M. Sneha Special Counsel

Case Title: Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

Case No: W.A.No.200 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment