Wastage of NEET Seats is not fair to Deprived Candidates: HC Upholds Debarment of Student who Vacated Alloted Seat

Allahabad: Observing that wastage of medical seats cannot be seen as fair treatment to the deprived candidates, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld a Government Order debarring a candidate, who left a medical seat midway without completing the course, from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.

"...candidates taking the competitive examinations, to find admission in their chosen line of course study, achieve different results. 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," observed the HC bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh.

Case Background: 

The matter concerned a student who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2026 examination and was willing to participate in the counselling. However, he was barred from participating in the counsellig process by a Government Order dated 26.06.2024 on the ground that he had left his medical seat at King George's Medical University midway after securing admission there through NEET UG 2025.

Through the Government Order dated 26.06.2024, the State had abolished the seat-leaving bond money or penalty. Instead of the bond penalty, the State, based on the recommendations of the National Medical Commission (NMC), decided that if a candidate left a medical/dental seat before completing the course, he/she would be debarred from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.

The petitioner moved the High Court challenging the Government Order dated 26.06.2024, arguing that it was unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

His counsel relied on several judicial precedents, including the orders by the Orissa and Bombay High Courts in the cases of Dr. Satyabrata Kanungo vs. State of Odisha and others, Miss Maithilee Tukaram Kadam vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.

He argued that the impugned GO should be struck down as it impedes his client from seeking to obtain his academic qualification having been successful in NEET-UG-2026. The counsel contended that the bar preventing him from participating in the counselling to obtain allotment of a seat in his preferred choice of Government Medical College deprives him of his constitutional rights. On the other hand, the counsels for the State argued that the G.O was issued after due consideration of relevant facts and circumstances.

Observations by High Court: 

The High Court noted that the petitioner, after being successful in the NEET exam, was restrained from participating in the counselling because he obtained admission in previous academic year in KGMU through NEET 2025. 

"It is obvious, in the time after obtaining admission in King George Medical College petitioner worked very hard to prepare for this year's entrance examination and secured better marks than his last attempt. Hence, he hopes to obtain admission in a more preferred by him Government Medical College," observed the High Court.

The bench further observed that "Two consequences of him obtaining admission as he would want are that he would lose a year and the vacated seat will lapse. We have given our anxious consideration to the views taken in Dr. Satyabrata Kanungo (supra) and Miss Maithilee Tukaram Kadam (supra). Both views proceed on stand point of petitioners before the respective Courts. On perusal of impugned GO our attention is drawn to the second consequence of the lapsed seat. In event petitioner is found to be successful in his challenge to the GO, an aspiring medical student, earlier denied that seat will have had violation of his constitutional rights on the seat rendered vacated and lapsed."

Further, the bench observed that the subject of the impugned GO mentions that it was issued keeping in view the mental health of candidates admitted through NEET counseling. The Court denied losing sight of unseen deprived candidates to uphold the constitutional rights of the petiitoner-student.

It noted, "This would necessarily include those candidates, who had taken the examination but did not find allotment, as denied to them by others who were found to be more meritorious in the open category. 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. He, not satisfied with the allotment against his previous attempt, could have waited out the academic year, to make better attempt and thereby have admission in his preferred medical college. Instead, he took admission and now wants to vacate the seat, for it to lapse. In our view, the Government has taken the decision after ascertaining present situation of mental health of candidates taking the competitive examination."

Further, the bench noted that the Supreme Court in Dar-US-Slam Educational Trust (Supra), laid down detailed guidelines for admission. In a later order dated 29.04.2025, the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others, the top court bench interpreted Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust (supra) to have given a key directive that, after the second round of counseling, students, who had already taken admission would not be allowed to vacate their seats. This was intended to prevent seat blocking and ensure that maximum number of seats were filled during the first and second rounds of counseling.

The bench also referred to the Bombay HC order in the case of Miss Maithilee Tukaram Kadam (supra) and noted, "The Bombay High Court considered the guidelines regulating eligibility to appear for the NEET examination, as in NEET-UG-2017. It found, a candidate could appear maximum of three times. There were upper age limits in respect of candidates to take the examination at that time but to best of our information such limits have since been removed. As such, the number of opportunities as limited did not militate against the bar or restriction, with object of deterrence, to avoid lapsing of seats and thereby wastage. The three opportunities provided to a candidate can be interpreted as opportunities by attempts, in which a candidate could find success to get allotment of a seat."

Accordingly, the bench held, "In context of facts and circumstances of this case and the consequence of a lapsed seat, deterrent against which has been put in place by impugned GO, we are in respectful disagreement with the relied upon views."

The bench observed that a candidate, who vacates their seat, stands denied chance of admission in the consequent session because there are lesser number of seats than the number of candidates and wastage of seats cannot be perceived as a fair treatment to the deprived candidates. With this observation, the HC bench denied relief to the candidate and dismissed the petition.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/07/rohan-yadav-vs-state-of-up-474457.pdf

Also Read:'Candidates wasting seats will be debarred from counselling'- AFMS warns NEET PG candidates, check details