Yamya Gole vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 7 OF OCTOBER, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 41836 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020403572026

AADHYA GAUR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhatia – GA for the respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 42067 of 2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases

CNR No.: MPHC020405462026

HARSH GUJRATI AND ONE ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhatia – GA for the respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 42322 of 2026

CNR No.: MPHC020407422026
YAMYA GOLE AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhatia – GA for the respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :
1. As the issue involved in all the above three writ petitions i.e W.P.
No. 41836/2026, W.P. No. 42067/2026, and W.P. No. 42322/2026 is
identical, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of
by way of this common order.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking urgent reliefs regarding the ongoing
medical admission process. They have challenged the constitutional
validity of Rule 6( , Rule 6( , Rule 12(2), Rule 13, and Rule 14 of
ख) ग)
the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018. The
challenge is specifically directed against the rules as amended up to
02.07.2024. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the
respondents have arbitrarily locked the online portal for previously
registered candidates during the Mop-Up round of counselling.
3. By locking the portal, the respondents have completely
prohibited the petitioners from editing their registration profile or
changing their category to the Non-Resident Indian quota. At the same
time, the respondents have opened the registration and edit facility for
completely new candidates. The petitioners argue that this selective
operation of the online portal creates an unfair and hostile
discrimination between two identical classes of students. They have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to
provide an online edit window on the MPOnline portal.
4. The petitioners seek this edit window prior to the choice filling
stage of the Mop-Up round so that they can update their category to the
NRI quota. They further seek a direction for verification of their NRI
eligibility and sponsorship documents so they may participate in the
seat allotment process on merit. The State authorities and the
Directorate of Medical Education have strongly opposed the petition
based on statutory limitations and strict timelines. The matter requires
this Court to examine the balance between the administrative
procedures of centralized counselling and the substantive rights of
meritorious candidates.
FACTS OF THE CASE
5. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from
W.P.No.41836/2026. The petitioners are meritorious candidates who
have successfully qualified in the NEET-UG 2026 examination.
Seeking admission to undergraduate medical courses, they registered
themselves on the state portal for the State Quota counselling. They
diligently participated in the first and second rounds of the state
combined counselling process in accordance with the prescribed rules.
Following the conclusion of the initial rounds, the Directorate of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
Medical Education issued a notification on 05.08.2026 setting out the
schedule for the Mop-Up round.
6. Upon the commencement of the Mop-Up round, the petitioners
realized that they were eligible and desirous of claiming seats under the
specialized NRI quota. When the petitioners attempted to log into the
MPOnline portal to update their category to NRI, they found that the
edit facility was completely locked for them. They discovered that
under the operation of Rule 6( and Rule 6( of the Admission
ख) ग)
Rules, their initial profiles had been permanently frozen. However, they
observed that the portal was kept completely open for unregistered,
fresh candidates to submit new registrations and freely select any
category.
7. The petitioners highlight that in a similar legal challenge in W.P.
No. 35779 of 2026, this Court had passed an interim order on
02.09.2026 directing the State to open the registration portal. Pursuant
to that judicial direction, the respondents unlocked the system and
allowed more than 550 fresh candidates to register and participate.
Following this, another group of candidates approached this Court in
W.P. No. 40397 of 2026 (Maitree Sengar & Ors. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh). This Court granted similar interim protection in that case on
30.09.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
8. Despite these orders, the respondent authorities deliberately
restricted their compliance strictly to the specific candidates named in
those petitions. The authorities refused to grant the same edit facility to
the present petitioners, forcing them to file the present writ petitions.
The urgency of the matter was increased when the official seat matrix
was published on 03.10.2026. The seat matrix clearly revealed that a
substantial number of 292 NRI seats were still lying vacant across
various medical and dental institutions in the State.
9. The petitioners apprehended the immediate operation of Rule 13
and Rule 14 of the Admission Rules by the respondent authorities.
Under these specific rules, any unallotted seats in the 15 percent NRI
quota during the Mop-Up round are automatically converted into the
unreserved general category. The guidelines for the final Stray Vacancy
round are not issued until the Mop-Up round concludes and the
conversion takes place. The petitioners realized that their right to claim
the vacant NRI seats would be permanently destroyed if they were not
permitted to update their category before this conversion occurred.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the operation
of Rule 6( , Rule 6( , and Rule 12(2) creates an unconstitutional
ख) ग)
and hostile discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It is
argued that both new entrants and previously registered candidates are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
competing in the exact same Mop-Up round for the same pool of vacant
seats. Granting a profile edit option to one class of students while
imposing a permanent lockout on diligent candidates who registered
early creates an artificial classification. This classification bears no
rational connection to the objective of a fair and transparent medical
counselling process.
11. The learned counsel further contends that rigid procedural rules
should not be allowed to override substantive merit in professional
admissions. To freeze a candidate's profile permanently while
dynamically altering the counselling landscape for fresh candidates
subordinates merit to a hyper-technical hurdle. A minor procedural
choice made during the first round should not act as an irrevocable
estoppel in the subsequent Mop-Up round. It is submitted that this
exclusionary trap defeats the primary constitutional objective of filling
scarce medical seats with the most meritorious available candidates.
12. The petitioners strongly attack the combined operation of Rule 13
and Rule 14 as arbitrary, perverse, and destructive of substantive merit.
The counsel argues that the State first engineers an artificial shortage of
NRI candidates by blocking the online portal for eligible students. Once
the portal is locked, the State then weaponizes Rule 13 to declare the
NRI seats as vacant and prematurely diverts them to the unreserved
pool. It is submitted that the conversion of specialized quota seats
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
should strictly remain a measure of absolute last resort only when
genuine candidates are unavailable.
13. The learned counsel relies heavily on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation and judicial parity. It is pointed out that the respondents
have already permitted over 550 candidates to edit their profiles under
earlier interim orders of this Court. Restricting the compliance of the
order passed in W.P. No. 40397 of 2026 only to the named petitioners
forces an avoidable multiplicity of litigation. The State is expected to
act as a model litigant and extend the same benefit to all similarly
situated candidates without forcing them to approach the Court
individually.
14. It is also argued that the impugned action directly infringes upon
the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. By arbitrarily shutting out
qualified aspirants from the Mop-Up round and pushing them to the
uncertain Stray Vacancy round, the State is obstructing their right to
pursue professional education. The counsel submits that the rules
impose a wildly disproportionate and punitive consequence for a mere
initial procedural choice. A simple digital toggle on the online portal
could seamlessly accommodate the candidates without causing any
administrative disruption.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
15. The petitioners rely on the settled legal principles laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537. It is submitted that valuable
professional education seats, particularly the NRI quota seats, represent
a crucial national resource that must not go to waste. Keeping the
applicant pool artificially restricted while 292 NRI seats remain vacant
frustrates the very statutory purpose of the quota approved by the
Supreme Court. The counsel emphasizes that the petitioners are fully
ready to undergo strict statutory document verification to prove their
NRI eligibility.
16. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the relief sought by the
petitioners is entirely prospective in nature and causes no prejudice to
any third party. The petitioners do not seek to disturb, reopen, or
unsettle any admissions that have already been finalized in the first two
rounds of counselling. The prayer is strictly limited to allowing them to
compete for the seats currently lying vacant in the Mop-Up round.
Therefore, there is no administrative chaos or disruption to the
overarching schedule that can justify the rigid denial of this simple
request.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
17. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
authorities and the Directorate of Medical Education strongly supports
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
the impugned rules and the state action. It is submitted that the entire
process of medical admission is governed by a strictly regulated, time-
bound statutory framework. When the petitioners initially registered for
the counselling process, they were fully aware of the conditions set out
in the Admission Rules. They consciously chose a specific category in
the first round, and under the rules, that choice is final and binding for
the entire counselling process.
18. The respondents argue that Rule 6( and Rule 6( are
ख) ग)
essential administrative tools designed to ensure finality and smooth
progression of the counselling stages. If thousands of previously
registered candidates are permitted to alter their categories and edit
their profiles at the Mop-Up stage, the entire system will collapse.
Every change to the NRI category requires detailed manual scrutiny of
sponsorship documents, relationship affidavits, and embassy
certificates. It is practically impossible for the authorities to conduct
fresh verification for existing candidates within the extremely tight
window of the Mop-Up round.
19. The learned counsel emphasizes that the State counselling
authorities are strictly bound by the mandatory guidelines and time
schedules published by the National Medical Commission. The State
authorities have absolutely no power or jurisdiction to alter the portal
rules or extend the counselling dates beyond the approved schedule.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
Permitting any deviation at this late stage would disrupt the seat matrix
calculations and delay the commencement of the academic session. The
respondents contend that centralized counselling requires strict
discipline, and individual procedural inconveniences cannot override
the larger public interest of completing admissions on time.
20. Defending the mechanism of Rule 13 and Rule 14, the
respondents state that the conversion of vacant NRI seats into the
unreserved pool is a transparent statutory policy. It is designed to
ensure that not a single valuable medical seat goes unfilled at the end of
the counselling cycle. The conversion only takes place after providing
sufficient opportunity to the eligible candidates who registered properly
under the NRI category from the very beginning. There is no
engineered vacancy or arbitrary diversion, as the process operates
automatically through the software based on the pre-published rules.
21. Regarding the claim of parity with previous interim orders, the
respondents submit that interim directions passed in specific cases do
not create a binding legal right for others to bypass the statutory rules.
The compliance with the orders in W.P. No. 35779 of 2026 and W.P.
No. 40397 of 2026 was done strictly under the compulsion of those
specific judicial directions. The State is legally obliged to defend the
constitutional validity of its rules, which have been framed under the
enabling provisions of the state legislation. Therefore, the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
pray that the writ petition be dismissed as it lacks merit and seeks to
disrupt a concluded process.
22. Moreover, it has been contended by the State in I.A.No.10998/26
that though interim orders were passed permitting the present
petitioners to participate in the Mop-up round on 05.10.2026 but
however, on 02.10.2026 itself on the very date the registration of Mop-
up round was closed/concluded and required merit list thus was
published on 03.10.2026. The interim arrangement was not possible
due to the finalization of Mop-up list. Thus, the interim order would not
create any right after the cut of date.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
23. This Court has carefully examined the rival contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material
available on record.

24. The first issue is the challenge to Rule 6( and Rule 6( on
ख) ग)
the ground of hostile discrimination. The petitioners claim that allowing
new candidates to register while locking out old candidates violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds that a candidate
who registers in the first round and a candidate who enters fresh in the
Mop-Up round belong to two distinct classes. The restriction on editing
profiles for older candidates is a conscious policy choice to freeze the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
data pool, preventing endless verification cycles which would collapse
the system.
25. This Court must evaluate the practical impact of the relief sought
in light of the central time schedule. The State is mandatorily required
to complete the Mop-Up admission process by 14.10.2026. The
registration closed on 02.10.2026, the merit list was published on
03.10.2026, and choice filling began on 04.10.2026. To allow the
petitioners to change their category after the merit list is published
would require resetting the entire software portal and invalidating the
ongoing choice filling process.
26. The record clearly shows that there are 268 eligible NRI
candidates actively competing for 175 physical MBBS NRI vacancies.
This factual position completely destroys the argument of the
petitioners that the State is engineering an artificial shortage of NRI
candidates. There is a sufficient pool of verified candidates ready to
claim the available seats. Introducing the petitioners into this pool at
this late stage would cause irreversible prejudice to the candidates who
strictly followed the time schedule and exercised their choices.
27. The petitioners have strongly relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
(Supra) . There is no dispute with the principle that professional
education seats should not go to waste. However, the mechanism under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
Rule 13 actually ensures that the seats do not go to waste by
transferring them to the general pool where they are immediately filled
by meritorious general candidates. The rule does not destroy the seats;
it merely reallocates them to the next available category in accordance
with a pre-published and transparent statutory formula. Therefore, Rule
13 and Rule 14 cannot be termed as manifestly arbitrary or
unconstitutional.
28. This Court must now examine the impact of the Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2023, framed by the National Medical
Commission. Regulation 4.3 strictly mandates that there shall be
common counselling for all medical institutions solely based on the
merit list. More importantly, it requires that the counselling must be
conducted strictly in conformity with the published guidelines and time
schedule. Regulation 4.5 imposes a complete prohibition on any
admission made in contravention of these regulations, explicitly stating
that no medical institution shall admit any candidate outside this
prescribed process.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a very strict view
regarding the adherence to these cutoff dates in the case of Ashish
Ranjan passed in M.A. No. 500 of 2026 in W.P. (Civil) No. 76 of
2015, dated 23.03.2026 . The petitioners’ reliance on the doctrine of
parity and previous interim orders of this Court in W.P. No. 40397 of
2026 cannot come to their rescue at this final stage. The Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
in the case of National Medical Commission Vs. Vedantaa Institute
of Medical Science & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12177
of 2026, dated 06.04.2026) has given a clear mandate regarding interim
orders. The Supreme Court directed that High Courts may not pass
similar interim orders directing selection and appointment pending the
disposal of the writ petitions. The Supreme Court emphasized that
admission matters must not be disturbed by interim directions that
bypass the statutory schedule.
30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have failed
to demonstrate any violation of Article 19(1)(g) or Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The right to pursue a profession or education is
subject to reasonable restrictions and statutory procedures. Requiring a
candidate to abide by the category chosen by them at the inception of
the counselling process is a perfectly reasonable procedural regulation.
It does not infringe upon any fundamental right, nor does it impose any
disproportionate penalty. The rules apply equally to all candidates who
participated in the earlier rounds.
31. The contention that the relief sought is entirely prospective and
causes no disruption cannot be accepted. Any direction to open the
portal at this belated stage will inevitably require fresh document
verification, republication of merit lists, and a delay in the final seat
allotment. This would directly contravene the strict timetable approved
by the National Medical Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
The administrative machinery cannot be forced to rewrite its software
rules and verified lists merely because the petitioners wish to reconsider
their category choice at the final hour.
32. Upon a complete and careful consideration of the entire material
on record, the statutory framework, and the binding precedents, we are
of the considered opinion that the impugned rules are legally
sustainable. The State authorities have acted strictly in accordance with
Rule 6( , Rule 6( , and Rule 13 of the Admission Rules, 2018. The
ख) ग)
actions of the respondents do not suffer from any jurisdictional error,
arbitrariness, or violation of the principles of natural justice. The
petitioners have not established any enforceable legal or constitutional
right that would justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus to alter the
concluded counselling process.
33. For the reasons stated above, the challenge to the constitutional
validity of the impugned rules fails. Any interference by this Court at
this stage is completely barred. Accordingly, the present writ petitions,
being devoid of any merits, are hereby dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

34. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of connected writ
petitions.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29173

W.P. NO. 41836/2026 & 2
other connected cases
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge Judge

hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/14/2026
5:21:02 PM