Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ appeal filed by the Union of India and other authorities against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The Single Judge had directed the authorities to conduct an additional mop-up counselling round for NEET SS 2024-25 to fill unfilled super-specialty seats. The writ petitioners, three doctors who had appeared for NEET SS 2024, sought this direction to ensure optimal seat utilization and fairness. The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice G. Arul Murugan, heard the appeal. The appellants argued that the counselling process was conducted strictly in accordance with the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which prescribe only specific rounds: Round 1, Round 2, and a mop-up round. They contended that an additional round would violate the statutory scheme and cause administrative chaos. The respondents argued that unfilled seats should be filled to avoid wastage and that the Single Judge's order was just and equitable. The court analyzed the regulations and found that the scheme does not provide for an additional round beyond the mop-up round. It held that the Single Judge's direction interfered with the finality of the admission process and could lead to inequality among candidates. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and dismissed the writ petition. The decision emphasizes that courts should not interfere with policy decisions regarding counselling rounds unless there is clear arbitrariness or violation of law.
Headnote
A) Medical Law - NEET SS Counselling - Additional Mop-Up Round - Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 - The issue was whether the court could direct an additional counselling round after the scheduled process was completed. The Division Bench held that the statutory scheme under the Regulations does not contemplate an additional round beyond the stipulated mop-up round, and that the Single Judge's direction interfered with the finality of the admission process. (Paras 2-10) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Policy Decisions - The court held that the decision to conduct counselling rounds is a policy matter within the domain of the Medical Counselling Committee and the National Medical Commission, and courts should not ordinarily interfere unless there is arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - The court observed that directing an additional round would create inequality among candidates who had already accepted seats or were left out in earlier rounds, and would unsettle the settled admissions. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the authorities to conduct an additional mop-up counselling round for NEET SS 2024-25 after the completion of the scheduled counselling process.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 18.9.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35939 of 2025 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Medical admissions
- Counselling rounds
- Seat utilization
- Finality of admission process
