PG medical admissions do not create indefeasible rights, state can cancel seats to comply with law: HC
Chhattisgarh High Court
Bilaspur: In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court observed that candidates do not possess a "vested or indefeasible right" to a seat merely because they have completed the admission formalities, especially when such admission process is subject to judicial scrutiny and statutory corrections.
The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal made this observation while dismissing a plea that challenged the cancellation of the first and second rounds of counselling for Postgraduate medical courses for the academic year 2025.
"The State has acted within its constitutional and statutory domain to ensure that admissions to Post Graduate Medical Courses are made strictly in accordance with settled legal principles and constitutional mandates. It is well settled that no vested or indefeasible right accrues merely on the basis of provisional allotment or admission, particularly when such admissions are subject to judicial scrutiny and correction," the bench observed.
While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that the primary legal question before the Court was whether the State could validly cancel a counselling process that had already been completed and admissions already secured to retrospectively apply amended Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025.
Filing the plea, the petitioner challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 22.01.2026 issued by the Commissioner, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, through which the entire counselling process of the first and second rounds conducted for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2025 was cancelled.
The application of the amended Rule 11(a) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 to already selected candidates was also challenged, along with the explanation dated 23.01.2026 as well as the subsequent order dated 23.01.2026 intimating a fresh counselling process, on the ground that the same is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It was argued by the petitioner that the cancellation was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the State argued that it was a necessary corrective measure to comply with the Supreme Court mandates.
Background:
After qualifying the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2025, the petitioner was initially allotted a seat in Bhopal under the All India Quota. Following this, the petitioner participated in the Chhattisgarh State NEET (PG) Counselling and, under the then-prevailing rules, she was allotted an MD Radio Diagnosis seat at Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhilai. Consequently, she completed the admission process on January 9, 2026, and deposited substantial fees (Rs 10.79 lakhs) and submitted a bank guarantee of Rs 10 lakhs.
However, issuing a notification on January 22, 2026, the State amended Rule 11 of the Admission Rules and simultaneously cancelled the first and second rounds of counselling.
The State's action followed a series of litigations, including the recent judgment in the case of Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 5937 of 2025).
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that last year in November, the Chhattisgarh HC had quashed two key provisions- Rule 11 (a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, calling them 'discriminatory and unconstitutional.'
Rule 11(a) gave priority for state quota seats to candidates who completed MBBS within Chhattisgarh, while Rule 11(b) said leftover seats would be filled by those who studied outside the state but are natives of Chhattisgarh.
Recently, while clarifying on the judgment, the HC Division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Singa and Justice BD Guru capped the institutional quota of postgraduate medical seats in government and private medical colleges and specified that 50 percent of these seats will remain reserved for institutional preference, while the remaining will be filled through open and merit-based admissions.
The bench added that the institutional quota seats will remain reserved for candidates who completed their MBBS course from the medical colleges within Chhattisgarh, recognised by the National Medical Commission (NMC), or those currently in service. The Court said that admissions to these PG medical seats will be granted solely based on merit. It further specified that the remaining 50% seats will fall under the open category and will be filled based on a state-level merit list accessible to all eligible candidates, and institutional quota reservation will not apply here.
However, challenging the State's decision to cancel the counselling for the first two rounds, the petitioner's counsel argued that the admission was concluded and a "vested right" had accrued. It was also argued that the amendment to Rule 11 should operate only prospectively. The counsel also pointed out that the petitioner resigned from her All India Quota seat, leading to forfeiture of security deposits and causing "irreplacable financial and academic loss". The counsel also argued that the State had no jurisdiction to cancel a concluded process without a specific judicial mandate for retrospective application.
On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the State, argued that the plea was misconceived. He submitted that the State was under a constitutional obligation to implement the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Others (2025).
Apart from this, the AAG further argued that no indefeasible right is created by "provisional allotment or admission" when the process is subject to the final outcome of the pending litigation. Accordingly, it was submitted that the cancellation was a "bona fide exercise" to ensure transparency and fairness in medical admissions.
Observations by HC:
Recently, the HC bench took note of the Rule 11 and how it was quashed. It also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Tanvi Behl, where the Apex Court observed, "But considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India… residence-based reservations are not permissible in PG medical courses."
While considering the matter, the bench observed that the State amended Rule 11 to create a 50% "Institutional Reservation" for candidates from Chhattisgarh medical colleges and a 50% "Open Category" for all eligible candidates based on merit.
Observing that no vested or indefeasible right accrues merely based on the provisional allotment or admission, especially when such admissions are subject to judicial scrutiny and correction, the bench further noted that since the coordinate Bench had already quashed the earlier discriminatory rules, the petitioner could not claim benefit from a process conducted under those invalidated rules.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the plea, the HC bench dismissed it and held that the State's orders were issued in "faithful compliance" with the Supreme Court mandates and earlier High Court clarifications.
"It is further directed that this order shall have the effect “in rem” and shall apply uniformly to all similarly situated candidates. The issues adjudicated herein stand conclusively settled, and no separate or successive petitions raising identical grounds shall be entertained by this Court, so as to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to ensure certainty, finality and discipline in the Post Graduate medical admission process," further directed the Court.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/chhattisgarh-hc-324599.pdf
Also Read: NEET PG: Chhattisgarh HC caps institutional quota at 50 percent for PG medical admissions
