Additional seats can be created to accomodate meritorious candidates: SC relief to doctor wrongfully denied MS Obstetrics Gynaecology admission

New Delhi: In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that the top court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to compensate a candidate who has been wrongfully denied admission by creating an additional seat or by accommodating the candidate in any other manner.

In this case, the bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to convert a vacant NRI seat in MD Community Medicine into a seat in MS Obstetrics-Gynecology, thereby accommodating two candidates in postgraduate medical admissions.

"...whenever occasion so arises when this Court finds that injustice has been done to a candidate by denying admission in a wrongful manner, this Court has exercised its power under Article-142 of the Constitution of India to compensate the candidate by creating an additional seat or by accommodating the candidate in any other manner," the top court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva observed while considering a plea by two postgraduate medical candidates.

Case Background: 

The plea before the Apex Court concerned admission to a postgraduate MS Obstetrics-Gynecology seat at Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Medical Science and Research, Sadopur, Ambala, under Maharishi Markandeshwar University.

According to the case details, the notification for admission to the subject course was issued by the Government of Haryana on 10.11.2025. Both the candidates participated in the selection process for a seat reserved under the NRI quota. 

The appellant doctor before the Apex Court was first allotted the subject seat in the NRI quota in the 3rd round of counselling. However, the same was later cancelled on the ground that the she had deposited the fees initially from a domestic account/ Indian account and subsequently also the amount was deposited from an Indian NRI account.

Similarly, the candidature of the other student was also rejected on the ground that she is not eligible to participate in the subject selection process from an NRI quota.

Consequently, both the candidates approached the High Court. The High Court held that the second candidate was not eligible to compete for an NRI seat as she did not qualify under the applicable definition of an NRI candidate.

However, the HC bench also observed that the concerned candidate had better merits than the first candidate (appellant before the Supreme Court) and accordingly, it directed the authorities to admit the second candidate to the concerned postgraduate seat. Challenging this, the first candidate approached the Apex Court.

Supreme Court's observations: 

During the pendency of the appeal, the top court bench on June 10, 2026, allowed the first candidate to deposit the entire required fee from an NRI account through RTGS. 

The Court was informed that the candidate had made the payment and the college had accepted the same. Thereafter, the Court allowed her to attend classes for the PG Ob-Gyn seat at the concerned college. She was also admitted to the hostel.

After taking note of the arguments by both the parties, the Supreme Court bench noted that the High Court had recorded a finding that denial of the first candidate's claim to participate in the stray round was not in accordance with law.

"The denial of the college to allow the appellant to participate in the stray round counselling having been found to be improper, we are of the view that the appellant has been meted out with injustice inasmuch as if the sixth respondent, ***, would not have been allowed to participate in the stray round for the same seat for which the dispute has arisen, the appellant would have succeeded in place of the sixth respondent," the Court observed at this outset.

At the same time, the bench noted that the other candidate had been admitted to the course on 16.04.2026 and was continuously attending the classes for about three months.

In view of the situation, the counsel for the appellant/first candidate submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court should exercise its powers under Article142 of the Constitution of India to accommodate both the candidates, so that the admission already granted to the second candidate is not cancelled and at the same time, the first candidate is also accommodated by creating a supernumerary seat or against a seat for which admission process is likely to start in the forthcoming academic session.

The counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) & Ors. (2024), where the top court had issued a direction for creating a supernumerary seat at IIT Dhanbad so that no existing student would be disturbed. Reliance was also placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Ors. (2024). In this case also, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and directed the creation of a supernumerary seat at AIIMS, Nagpur.

From these judgments, the top court bench noted that whenever the Court finds that injustice has been done to a candidate by denying admission in a wrongful manner, the Court has exercised its power under Article-142 of the Constitution of India to compensate the candidate by creating an additional seat or by accommodating the candidate in any other manner.

In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court has found that the appellant was wrongly denied participation in the stray round counselling. Thus, the doctor had a better claim for the subject seat and has been denied admission in a wrongful manner, it held.

Meanwhile, the bench also took note of the submission by counsel for the National Medical Commission (NMC), who strenuously urged the Court against the direction to create a supernumerary seat, as it would set a wrong precedent and lead to a flood of litigation seeking such requests in subsequent academic years.

"We are alive to a situation that creation of a supernumerary seat in every situation may not be warranted and the same can be done only in the extreme situations where an apparent injustice has been meted out to a candidate and even in such a situation, this Court has to first find out a way as to whether any vacancy is available in other discipline in the same University and if such vacancy is available, the candidate can be accommodated as against that seat by allowing him/ her to continue to study in the subject seat for which there is competing claims by the candidate," the bench observed at the outset.

"Since, in the present case, an NRI seat is available in a different discipline in the same college, we exercise our powers under Article-142 of the Constitution of India to direct that the said NRI seat in the MD-Community Medicine shall be converted into a seat in M.S. (Obstetrics-Gynecology) in the same category as one time measure and thus, both the candidates will be permitted to pursue their MS course in ObstetricsGynecology in the same college," it further noted, while disposing off the appeal.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/13-state-of-haryana-364920.pdf

Also Read: Supreme Court relief to disabled MBBS aspirant, supernumerary seat to be created