While considering a plea filed by a National Eligibility-Entrance Test (NEET) candidate, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Bharati H. Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta termed such a policy introduced after commencement of the admission process as impermissible and contrary to the binding rules in the prospectus.
Referring to the common admission prospectus for 2025-2026, the HC bench observed, "It is a well accepted principle, that the Prospectus or the Information Brochure has the force of law and is binding on the Authority conducting of the admission process as well as the students. The prospectus or the information brochure which govern the admission procedure has sanctity in law and it is binding on all persons, as far as the process of admission is concerned. The eligibility of admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance examination and the admissions necessarily are to be based on the instructions given in the prospectus."
Also Read: Bombay HC Quashes 3% Reservation for Govt, Private Employees' Children in Goa Medical Colleges
"...it is evident that without amending the prospectus or without notifying the modification in the prospectus, straightaway applications are invited from sports quota persons, as the seats from CFF category remained vacant. Here, the Government adopts a 'U' turn, as what impression it had given in the prospectus, which was duly published and has binding effect, is that the seats shall be de-reserved and shall be filled in by General Category candidate but now, they are sought to be filled in by introducing a new category of reservation of 'sports category' which is not at all prescribed in the sports quota," further noted the bench.
Referring to the Full Bench Order in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute, Aurangabad vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. the HC bench reiterated that the admission brochure or admission notification issued by the State or other competent authority "cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun."
Filing the plea, the NEET candidate challenged a notice dated August 1, 2025, issued by the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) inviting applications from meritorious sportspersons to fill up the seats under the Children of Freedom Fighters (CFF) category.
As per the petitioner, the rules of the prospectus released by the Government mentioned that the unfilled reserved seats, including those for Children of Freedom Fighters, must be de-reserved and transferred to the General Category under Clause 3.31.
However, the petitioner pointed out that the State introduced a new quota after the first round of counselling on August 5, 2025. This, the petitioner argued, violated the rules of the prospectus and his legitimate expectation of securing a BDS seat based on merit.
In support of his argument, the petitioner relied on judicial precedents, including the orders in the case of Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768, and Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions in Devbir Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 20041 of 2024) and Samarveer Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 34334 of 2024). These judgments struck down changes in the admission rules mid-process.
On the other hand, the Advocate General Devidas Pangam, who appeared on behalf of the State, defended the State's policy, citing executive power under Article 162 and the Goa Sports Policy, 2009. The State's counsel argued that the sports quota had long been under consideration.
Further, the State invoked clause 3.54 and 3.56 of the prospectus, which permitted modification of the admission procedures to ensure smooth conduct. Meanwhile, the Goa Fencing Association and athletes were intervenors in the plea and they supported the quota, citing national practices and the Supreme Court decisions such as Tej Prakash Patak v. Rajasthan High Court. Referring to this, they argued that the changes are permissible where eligibiliy criteria remain unaffected.
However, referring to Clause 3.54 of the prospectus, the HC bench observed,
"According to us, the clause do not confer, the power upon the Directorate of Technical Education to introduce particular quota midway when the admission process has already begun. A reading of the said provision, in isolation, to achieve the desired result in justifying the reservation of seats for Sports quota by inviting applications, according to us, do not inspire confidence."
"We reach this conclusion on reading of the entire prospectus and specifically Rule 3, providing for admission, which clearly state that the admission process shall be governed by the common prospectus and as far as MBBS/BDS/ BHMS etc. is concerned, admission would be based upon the score in the NEET-UG examination and subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as prescribed in Rule 4 and with the reservation of seats, as prescribed in Rule 5...It is in continuation of these Rules, the prospectus provide that unclaimed/vacant seats if any from the reserved category, shall be dereserved and become available for General category at the end of each round. Similar is the process which is applicable in respect of 15% All India quota, which of course shall be governed by norms prescribed by the National Medical Commission," the bench observed.
"It is in continuation of this directive, clause 3.56 further reserve, the right in Directorate of Technical Education to modify any of the provisions related to 'admission procedure', in order to facilitate smooth conduct of admission process. We must express that the aforesaid clause 3.56 cannot be read dehors or in isolation without consideration of the previous clauses contained in Rule 3. Undisputably, if the Apex Court or the High Court or the Central Government or State Government issue mandatory directives, it would be necessary to amend the prospectus with the Government approval but Rule 3.55 prescribe that this modification shall duly notified, conveying that every participant in the process must be made aware of the same," it further noted.
Accordingly, the bench concluded that without amending the prospectus or notifying modifications, inviting applications under a new category after commencement of counselling amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun.
However, the Court clarified that the State may frame policies to encourage sports, but it also observed that such reservations must be incorporated in the prospectus prior to commencement of admissions.
"By no stretch of imagination, do we doubt the permissibility of the State to provide such reservation and even by executive fiat but we are surprised by the method that is adopted by the State Government that despite the declaring the Sports Policy in the year 2009, all these years the State Government did not try to implement the same by providing reservation in the MBBS/BDS courses for so long and all of a sudden, a halfhearted exercise is being taken as we see that instead of providing a quota for three percent, out of the three seats that become available on non-filling of the seats from FFs category, two of them have decided to be filled in by the persons belonging to Sports category. This according to us, amounts to changing the Rule of the Game which we do not permit as we note that the issue is not whether the Petitioner become eligible for the post or not but we are determining the issue from a larger point as to whether the midway change in the method of filling the seats can be accepted and permitted," observed the bench as it quashed the sports quota reservation.
"For the discussion as aforesaid, we are satisfied that the conversion of two seats falling vacant from the Freedom Fighters Category into Sports quota, when the admission process has already commenced, cannot be sustained as it is in contradiction of the prevalent norm that Rules of game cannot be changed once the game has begun and we find the said decision introduced midway to the admission process to be arbitrary. As we have not pronounced upon the entitlement of the State to introduce Sports quota in the admission to the professional degree courses, we leave the issue open for consideration as and when the Government introduces such a policy in the prospectus, since inception of the admission process to be conducted," ordered the bench.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/akshay-srivastava-v-state-of-goa-299364.pdf
Also Read: Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Withdrawn or Lapsed? Telangana HC Asks State
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.