Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that High Courts lack the authority to direct additional mop-up counselling rounds for unfilled super-specialty medical seats once the scheduled admission deadline of August 31 has passed. The dispute arose when doctors who had participated in NEET-SS counselling sought an additional round to fill vacancies that remained due to alleged administrative inaction. The Court determined that permitting such extensions would defeat the very purpose of fixed admission timelines and that any grievance in this regard must be addressed before the Supreme Court.

The appeal arose from an order passed by a learned Single Judge directing conduct of an additional mop-up counselling round for NEET SS 2024–25 to fill unfilled super-specialty seats.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban On Construction Or Naming Of Mosques After Babur Or Babri Masjid

The writ petitioners, who had appeared for NEET-SS 2024, contended that though they were allotted seats in earlier rounds, certain preferred seats became vacant after candidates resigned. They asserted that these seats remained unfilled due to inaction by authorities and were not included either in a State-level extended stray round or in the All-India counselling process.

The appellants, comprising Union authorities and medical regulatory bodies, contended that the counselling schedule was binding and that the last date for admission was 31.08.2025. They relied on judicial precedents to argue that no court other than the Supreme Court could permit deviation beyond the prescribed timeline.

The private respondents maintained that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 permitted issuance of directions to ensure seat utilisation even after the deadline.

The Court observed that the schedule of counselling and admission must be strictly adhered to, and that once the last date of admission passed, any direction issued by the High Court would be violative of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan (supra).

The Court stated that "the Apex Court in umpteen number of judgments held that the schedule of counselling must be adhered to strictly. If violation of schedule is permitted and extension of time is granted, it will amount to opening a pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule will be defeated and that extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any other justification."

On the question of vacant seats, the Court further noted the Supreme Court's position that "extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any other justification."

On the question of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court recorded that while the founding fathers of the Constitution placed no limitation on the power of the High Court, the schedule of counselling and the last date of admission were prescribed by the Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2025, which carried the force of law. The Court stated that if any illegality in the process of counselling and admission is found, it could be corrected by the writ court, provided the last date of admission had not passed. It added that "in those cases where the last date of admission is over, it is fait accompli" and the party must seek remedy before the Supreme Court, which would decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.

On the reliance placed by the Single Judge on the Supreme Court's order in Kevin Joy (supra), the Court observed that the Supreme Court had stated in that case that "in the peculiar fact and circumstances of this case, without it being treated as a precedent, we are inclined to issue directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India." The Court noted that the Single Judge had proceeded to grant relief by treating that order as a precedent, despite the Supreme Court's unequivocal direction to the contrary.

Also Read: Madras High Court Directs Bar Council Of India To Process Law Colleges' Applications For Additional Intake Within Three Weeks, Rejects Need-Basis Bar In Absence Of Empirical Data

The Court directed that “the order impugned cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.N.Sivaprakash, SCGSC

For the Respondents: Mr. P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel for Mr.Vikram Veerasamy for R1 to R3; Mrs.M.Sneha, Special Counsel.

Case Title: The Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr. Ajitha and Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: MHC:559

Case Number: W.A.No.200 of 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan