Metha A M vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

$~65 & 67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 30 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010524112026
+ W.P.(C) 16113/2026, CM APPL. 75419/2026 & CM APPL.
75420/2026
METHA A M .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bishwa Bandhu, SC with
Ms. Nisha & Ms. Kumari
Aastha, Advs. for R1
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain,
CGSC with Mr. Nipun Jain,
Adv. for R1 & R2
Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr.
Mrinal Kumar Sharma & Mr.
Zillur Rahman, Advs. for R2
Ms. Aishwarya Srivastava,
Adv. for R3
67
# CNR No. DLHC010524242026
+ W.P.(C) 16126/2026, CM APPL. 75445/2026 & CM APPL.
75449/2026
DERIC CHRISTOPHER .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bishwa Bandhu, SC with
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 1 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

Ms. Nisha & Ms. Kumari
Aastha, Advs. for R1
Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr.
Mrinal Kumar Sharma & Mr.
Zillur Rahman, Advs. for R2
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain,
CGSC with Mr. Nipun Jain,
Adv. for R1 & R2
Ms. Aishwarya Srivastava,
Adv. for R3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petitions, the petitioners seek issuance of a
direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to acknowledge the petitioners’
NEET (UG) 2020 Score Cards as Deemed Eligibility Certificate for
the purpose of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examinations
(‘FMGE’), 2026.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner/Metha A M and the
petitioner/Deric Christopher had applied for the NEET 2020
examinations under the ‘ unreserved category ’ and had obtained
114/720 marks and 146/720 marks respectively. In terms of the
qualifying criteria prescribed under the NEET (UG) 2020 Information
Bulletin, a candidate belonging to the unreserved category was
th
required to secure a minimum of 50 percentile which in the
petitioners’ case corresponded to a score of 147 marks.
3. The petitioners thereafter pursued medical education from the
Davao Medical School Foundation, Philippines and were conferred
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 2 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

with the ‘ Doctor of Medicine’ degree in the year 2026. The petitioners
are now desirous of practicing medicine in India and are consequently
required to appear in the FMGE. The petitioners’ in the present case
had duly submitted the application forms for the FMGE, October 2026
examinations. However, vide separate emails, the petitioners were
informed that their application forms were deficient inasmuch as the
petitioners had failed to submit the requisite Eligibility
Certificate/NEET UG Score Card. Petitioner/Metha received the
aforesaid email communicating the said deficiency on 10.10.2026
whereas Petitioner/Deric Christopher received the communication on
14.10.2026. Despite receiving the aforesaid communications, the
petitioners failed to submit the requisite Eligibility Certificate within
the prescribed timeline being 21.10.2026 (11:55 PM). Consequently,
no admit card was issued to the petitioners for appearing in the
FMGE.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this
Court seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accept the
petitioners’ NEET (UG) 2020 score card as deemed Eligibility
Certificate for the FMGE, October 2026. It is the case of the
petitioners that they had qualified the NEET (UG) 2026 examinations
under the OBC category. Consequently, the petitioners pray that a
direction be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accept the
candidature of the petitioners for the October 2026 Session in the light
of their NEET (UG) 2020 Score cards.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the
petitioners have qualified the NEET UG 2020 examination in the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 3 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

OBC category. He submits that OBC certificates were issued to the
petitioners by the competent authority in the year 2020. He submits
that as per the prescribed criteria, the petitioners, belonging to the
OBC category, were required to secure only 113/720 marks for
qualifying the NEET (UG) 2020 examinations. He submits that since
the petitioners in the respective petitions scored 114/720 and 146/720,
they had duly qualified the NEET (UG) 2020 examinations under the
OBC category. He submits that the petitioners were unable to cure the
deficiency within the stipulated time period on account of the absence
of a grievance redressal forum.
6. He consequently prays that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be now
directed to accept the NEET (UG) 2020 Score cards of the petitioners
as Deemed Eligibility Certificate, and they be issued admit cards for
appearing in the FMGE October 2026 Session.
7. Per contra , the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1
submits that Respondent No. 1 is a statutory regulatory body entrusted
with the regulation of medical education and the prescription of
applicable standards rules and regulations. He submits that the FMGE
examinations are conducted by Respondent No. 2 whereas the NEET
(UG) is conducted by Respondent No. 3. He submits that the
deficiency in the respective applications was communicated to the
petitioners by Respondent No. 2 which is the body entrusted with the
conduction of the FMGE examinations and consequently, no specific
independent act has been established that would warrant any relief
claimed against Respondent No. 1.
8. He submits that even otherwise, in terms of Clause 4.6.2 of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 4 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

Information Bulletin for the FMGE October 2026, the result of NEET
UG is treated as a Deemed Eligibility Certificate. He submits that the
onus was on the petitioners to cure and furnish the requisite
documents within the stipulated time period. He submits that the
petitioners, having failed to do so, cannot seek to attribute any
consequences of the deficiency to Respondent No. 1 merely because
eligibility framework is prescribed by the regulatory authority.
9. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the
deficiencies were communicated to the petitioners in the respective
petitions on 10.10.2026 and 14.10.2026 and the onus was on the
petitioners to cure the said deficiency by submitting the Eligibility
Certificate/ NEET Score Card within the prescribed time frame being
21.10.2026 [11:55 PM]. He submits that the petitioners having failed
to do so, cannot, at this belated stage seek issuance of admit cards. He
submits that even otherwise, the Score Card of the petitioners clearly
reflect that they had applied for the NEET UG 2020 examinations
under the ‘unreserved’ category and had failed to qualify the same. He
submits that the petitioners have placed reliance on the community
certificates obtained by the respective petitioners after the declaration
of NEET UG 2020 results on 16.10.2020 to claim that the benefit
under the OBC Category.
10. He submits that such claim for change in category from
‘unreserved’ to ‘OBC’ is highly belated and ought to be rejected. He
submits that after 6 years of appearing in the NEET (UG) 2020
examinations under the ‘unreserved’ category, the petitioners cannot
now claim that since they belonged to OBC category, their results
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 5 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

ought to be considered. He consequently submits that even otherwise,
since the petitioners failed to qualify the NEET (UG) 2020
examinations in the selected category, their Score Card in any event
cannot be deemed to be an Eligibility Certificate for the purpose of the
FMGE.
11. The said stance has further been affirmed on behalf of the
NTA/Respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3
submits that since the petitioners had filled the application form under
the ‘unreserved category’, they were required to secure a minimum of
147/720 marks. She submits that the certificates relied upon by the
petitioners were issued after the declaration of the NEET (UG) 2020
results on 16.10.2020. She submits that as per the NEET (UG) 2020
Information Bulletin, eligibility of a candidate is to be determined
with reference to the last date prescribed for submission of the
application form. She submits that the petitioners, therefore, cannot,
nearly six years after the declaration of result, rely upon a certificate
obtained subsequent to the declaration of the results to retrospectively
claim the benefit of a reserved category in respect of NEET (UG)
2020. She submits that even otherwise, the benefit of reservation as
per the NEET UG Bulletin was only available to candidates belonging
to the OBC non creamy layer category and those who formed part of
the central list of OBC. She submits that the petitioners, barring a
community certificate, have not placed on record any certificate
evidencing their status as an OBC-NCL candidate under the Central
List. She submits that the only certificates relied upon by the
petitioners is a community certificate issued by the Government of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 6 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

Tamil Nadu, however, the said certificates neither establishes nor
certifies their non-creamy layer status in the performa prescribed
under the NEET (UG) 2020 Information Bulletin. She further submits
that a change of category after the declaration of result is highly
prohibited.
12. I have taken note of the rival contentions advanced by the
parties and have carefully traversed the record. While the petitioners
failed to cure the deficiency by submitting their NEET (UG) 2020
Score Cards within the prescribed timeline, the short point that arises
for determination of this Court is whether the NEET (UG) 2020 Score
Cards of the petitioners can even otherwise be validly directed to be
considered by the respondent authorities as Eligibility Certificate for
the FMGE examinations in the light of the contention of the
petitioners that they had qualified the examination under the OBC
Category.
13. Before this Court embarks on the journey of determining the
same, it is pertinent to briefly trace the statutory position in relation to
FMGE and the prerequisite of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate.
14. Pertinently, the FMGE is a screening test for foreign medical
graduates, and the same owes its genesis to Section 13(4A) of the
erstwhile Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (now National Medical
Commission Act, 2019). Section 13 (4A) and (4B) of the erstwhile
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 prescribes as follows:
“13 (4A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical
qualification granted by any medical institution in any country
outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in
that country after such date as may be specified by the Central
Government under sub-section (3), shall not be entitled to be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 7 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical
Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register
unless he qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such
purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person
qualifies the said screening test shall be deemed to be the
recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act for
that person.
(4B) A person who is a citizen of India shall not, after such date as
may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3),
be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted
by any medical institution in any foreign country without obtaining
an eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council and in case
any such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such
eligibility certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the
screening test referred to in sub-section (4A):
Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired the medical
qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained
admission in foreign medical institution before the commencement
of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall not be
required to obtain eligibility certificate under this sub-section but,
if he is qualified for admission to any medical course for
recognized medical qualification in any medical institution in
India, he shall be required to qualify only the screening test
prescribed for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for
entering his name in the Indian Medical Register.”
15. Pursuant to the same, the then Medical Council of India framed
the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 which came into force on
15.03.2002. Regulation 3 of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002
provides that an Indian citizen or overseas citizen of India holding a
primary medical qualification awarded by a medical council outside
India and desirous of obtaining a provisional or permanent registration
with the Medical Council of India or any State Medical Council, is
required to qualify a screening test conducted by the prescribing
authority [which in the present case is Respondent No. 2].
16. Furthermore, Regulation 4 of the Screening Test Regulations,
2002 stipulates an ‘Eligibility Criteria’ for the Screening Test. One of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 8 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

the criterion under Regulation 4 pertains to the requirement of
obtaining an ‘Eligibility Certificate ’ from the Medical Council of
India. The relevant portion of Regulation 4 of the Screening Test
Regulations, 2002 is as follows:
“4. No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test
unless:
….
(2) he/she had obtained ‘Eligibility Certificate’ from the Medical
Council of India as per the ‘Eligibility Requirement for taking
admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign
Medical Institution Regulations, 2002’. This requirement shall not
be necessary in respect of Indian citizens who have acquired the
medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions or have
obtained admission in foreign medical institution before 15th
March, 2002.”
17. Regulation 3 of the aforementioned Foreign Medical Institution
Regulations, 2002 in turn provides that a candidate who has passed the
qualifying examination [higher secondary examination or ISCE which
is equivalent to 10+2] either from India or abroad and is desirous of
joining an undergraduate medical course in any foreign medical
institution on or after 15.03.2002 shall have to approach the Medical
Council for issuance of the Eligibility Certificate for that purpose. Put
otherwise, from a reading of the aforesaid, it transpires that any
candidate who aspired to obtain medical education from any foreign
medical institution is required to obtain an Eligibility Certificate prior
to joining an undergraduate medical course in any foreign medical
institution.
18. Consequently, the candidates desirous of obtaining medical
education from any foreign medical institution had to obtain an
Eligibility Certificate prior to joining an undergraduate medical course
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 9 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

in any foreign medical institution, and if the said candidate was
desirous of practising in India thereafter, the candidate was required to
qualify a Screening test in India prescribed for such purpose.
19. The said position of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate was
however modified by way of a notification dated 01.03.2018 which
inserted the following clause in Regulation 4 of the Screening Test
Regulations, 2002:
“2(A) Indian Citizens/Overseas Citizen of India intending to obtain
primary medical qualification from any medical institution outside
India, on or after May 2018, shall have to mandatorily qualify the
‘National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS
course’. The result of the ‘National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
for Admission to MBBS course’ shall deem to be treated as the
Eligibility Certificate for such persons, provided that such persons
fulfils the Eligibility Criteria for admission to the MBBS course
prescribed in the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
1997.”
20. In terms of the aforementioned clause as quoted supra , Indian
citizens and overseas citizen of India intending to obtain a primary
medical qualification from any medical Institution outside India on or
after May 2018 is mandatorily required to qualify the NEET
examination, and their result in the said examination would be deemed
to be treated as Eligibility Certificate for such candidate.
21. Similar insertion was also made under Regulation 8(iv) of the
Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 which provided the
following:
In regulation 8 under heading “Eligibility Criteria”, the following
Clause (iv) has been added after Clause 8(iii) in terms of
Notification published on 01.03.2018 in the Gazette of India.
“(iv) Indian Citizens/Overseas Citizen of India intending to obtain
primary medical qualification from any medical institution outside
India, on or after May 2018, shall have to mandatorily qualify the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 10 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

‘National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS
course’. The result of the ‘National-Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
for Admission to MBBS course’ shall deem to be treated as the
Eligibility Certificate for such persons, provided that such persons
fulfils the Eligibility Criteria for admission to the MBBS course
prescribed in the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
1997.”
22. Consequently, post the amendment, any candidate desirous of
obtaining primary medical qualification from any medical institution
outside India, on or after May 2018, shall have to mandatorily qualify
the NEET examination.
23. The said addition under Regulation 8(iv) of the Foreign Medical
Institution Regulations, 2002 came up for consideration before the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arunaditya Dubey v. Medical
Council Of India and Anr : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1205/2019 ,
and by judgment dated 04.02.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while
affirming the validity of the said amendments observed as follows:
“4. The regulation has been brought in, invoking the power under
Section 33 of the Act which empowers the Council, with the
previous sanction of the Central Government, to make any
regulation generally to carry out the provisions of the Act. The
requirement of an Eligibility Certificate from the Medical Council
had been provided by section 13(4B) by an amendment in the year
2001 and the incorporation of sub-Clause (iv) under Clause 8 in
the year 2018; mandating qualification in the NEET exam, ensures
a fair and transparent procedure in the grant of Eligibility
Certificate. The regulation does not in any manner conflict with the
enactment.
5. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the regulations, in
which context, the learned counsel sought for a one-time exemption
as applicable to the petitioners. Obviously, with open eyes, after
the amended regulations came into effect if any candidate chose to
obtain admission in a foreign institution for pursuing a course
leading to a primary medical qualification, they cannot seek for an
exemption from the regulations; which lays down essential
eligibility criteria for practicing medicine within the Country. This
does not restrict their right to practice anywhere outside India. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 11 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

regulations, especially the additional mandate to satisfy the
eligibility criteria, is not ultra vires the Constitution and neither is
it in conflict with any provisions of the Act nor on any count
arbitrary or unreasonable. Hence, all the petitions are dismissed.”
24. Pertinently, in that regard, Clause 4.6.2 of the Information of
the Bulletin for FMGE October 2026 stipulated the following:
“In terms of notification published on 01.03.2018 in the Gazette of
India, “Indian Citizens / Overseas Citizen of India intending to
obtain primary medical qualification from any medical institution
outside India, on or after May 2018, shall have to mandatorily
qualify the ‘National-Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test for Admission
to MBBS course’. The result of the ‘National- Eligibility-cum
Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS course’ shall deem to be
treated as the Eligibility Certificate for such persons, provided that
such persons fulfils the Eligibility Criteria for admission to the
MBBS course prescribed in the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997.”
25. In view of Clause 4.6.2 of the Information Bulletin for FMGE
October, 2026 and the applicable regulations thus, any candidate
intending to appear in the Screening Test on or after May 2018 was
required to submit his result for NEET UG evidencing that the said
candidate had qualified the said examination, and such result was to
be treated as Eligibility Certificate for such candidate for the purpose
of appearing in the screening test.
26. Consequently, the petitioners in the present case were required
to submit their NEET Score Cards as Eligibility Certificates for the
FMGE October 2026 Session. As noted above, the said deficiency was
not cured by the petitioners within the stipulated period. Crestfallen,
the petitioners have now approached this Court seeking a direction to
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accept their NEET (UG) 2020 Score Card
contending that the petitioners had duly qualified the examination
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 12 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

under the OBC Category. The limited question for the consideration
of this Court, thus as noted above, is whether the petitioners who
consciously submitted their NEET application under the ‘unreserved
category’, failed to secure the qualifying marks prescribed for the said
category, did not avail any opportunity to seek correction of category,
can, at this juncture, seek recognition of their candidature under the
OBC merely on the basis of the community certificate.
27. After much deliberation, this Court finds itself unpersuaded by
the stance taken on behalf of the petitioners.
28. The NEET (UG) 2020 Information Bulletin provides for 27%
reservation for the Category of Other Backward Classes belonging to
Non Creamy Layer. The benefit of reservation under the OBC NCL
category was thus only available to candidates belonging to
communities recognised under the Central List of the OBCs. Further,
the NEET UG Bulletin further prescribed that in order to claim the
benefit of the OBC NCL category, the candidate was required to
furnish certificate in the prescribed performa certifying recognition
under the relevant resolutions of the Government of India as well as
the candidate’s non creamy layer status. As is apparent from a bare
perusal of the certificates appended to the respective writ petitions, the
petitioners have failed to record any certificate evidencing their status
as OBC NCL. The petitioners have merely attached a community
certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and the same
neither demonstrates whether the petitioners were recognised in the
Central List nor certifies whether the petitioners belonged to the non
creamy layer in the prescribed performa provided in the NEET (UG)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 13 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

2020 Bulletin, Appendix XI.
29. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observation, even if this Court
were to consider the case of the petitioners in the best light, yet the
stand taken by the petitioners, at this belated juncture, cannot and
ought not to be countenanced.
30. It is pertinent to note that NEET UG 2020 Information Bulletin
expressly provided that the category furnished by the candidate in the
online application form would be final. Infact, paragraph 3 of the
Disclaimer specifically provides:
“ Online information provided by candidates like name of
candidate, contact/ address details, category, PwD status,
educational qualification details, date of birth, etc will be treated
as correct/final. Any request for changes in information after the
closure of correction period will not be considered by NTA under
any circumstances …”
31. Furthermore, Clause 5.2 of the NEET UG 2020 Information
Bulletin provides the following:
“ Important note: No change in the category will be entertained
after the last date specified by NTA for NEET (UG) 2020
Registration and no subsequent changes will be effective after
declaration of NTA NEET (UG) Score 2020 .”
32. Clause 14.2 of the NEET UG 2020 Information Bulletin further
stipulates the following:
“ In no case, the change of data submitted by candidate in the
online Application Form shall be made by NTA, after the
declaration of result .”
33. In the present case, the Score Cards of the petitioners reveal that
they had appeared for the NEET (UG) 2020 examinations under the
‘ unreserved’ category for which the minimum qualifying score was
147 marks. Petitioner/Metha A M secured 114/720 whereas
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 14 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

Petitioner/Deric Christopher secured 146/720 marks. As is apparent,
the petitioners failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the
category in which they had appeared. The result was declared way
back on 16.10.2020. No material has been brought forth to establish
that the petitioners requested any correction within the stipulated
period prescribed by the NEET (UG) 2020 Bulletin or till the time of
declaration of result.
34. In such circumstances, the petitioners subsequent claim for
change in category, that too six years after the declaration of result is
unsustainable. Merit positions and cut-off are determined on the basis
of category. The relief sought by the petitioners, at this juncture, is
neither legally sustainable nor equitable as it would confer an
individual advantage at the cost of fairness and uniformity in the
examination process.
35. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanan
Shajahan Chittothayil V. Union Of India & Ors. : W.P. (C)
12752/2025 , where the candidate therein had prayed for rectification
of category from General to OBC-NCL after the declaration of NEET
result upon realisation that she belonged to the Central List and that
she had mistakenly selected the category as ‘ General ’, had disallowed
the petition and observed as follows:
“21. This Court cannot rewrite the application submitted by
petitioner and modify the particulars entered in the application, in
case the petitioner had failed to select OBC-NCL category at the
time of filling of application form and subsequently, failed to
correct the same during the window period granted for the said
purpose.
22. No provision in the information bulletin has been pointed out
which provides for change in category after the window period
provided for correction of particulars from 09.03.2025 to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 15 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

11.03.2025. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution cannot tweak the procedure provided in the
information bulletin to correct the mistake committed by an
individual candidate nor any mandamus can be issued contrary to
the provisions of information bulletin.
23. Even otherwise, granting succour to one candidate would
tantamount to making an inequitable exception, thereby denying
equal opportunity to other similarly situated candidates who did
not opt of OBC-NCL category either mistakenly or for want of
possessing valid certificate at the relevant time. Therefore, no
benefit can be granted to the petitioner solely on the grounds of
compassion and sympathy.”
36. It bears relevance to note that the sanctity of any competitive
examination lies not merely in the fairness of the examination itself
but also in the finality of declarations made by the candidates who
participate. Any candidate who aspires to avail a category-based
relaxation is expected to exercise due diligence and make the said
declaration at the time of submitting the application, or in the very
latest, in the correction window provided thereafter. The obligation to
adhere to the prescribed procedure therefore cannot be made
contingent upon whether the omission of the candidate was deliberate
or inadvertent . This is because even an erroneous declaration, if not
rectified within the stipulated opportunity, ought to ordinarily attain
finality. To hold otherwise, any and every candidate who fails to
secure the desired result under the category originally opted for would
find an occasion to revisit his choice and seek the benefit of a more
favourable qualifying threshold with the advantage of hindsight.
37. Consequently, in the present case as well, the claim sought by
the petitioners, cannot be countenanced. At the cost of repetition, as
noted above, the petitioners opted for ‘unreserved’ category and failed
to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the NEET (UG) 2020 in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 16 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39

the unreserved category. At this belated juncture, and with the benefit
of hindsight, this Court unfortunately cannot affix its judicial seal of
approval to the claim sought by the petitioners.
38. On such a conspectus of facts, the petitioners having failed to
qualify NEET (UG) 2020 examinations in the opted category, no
direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the
score card of the petitioners as Eligibility Certificate and the
petitioners therefore are not eligible to appear in the FMGE October
2026 examinations.
39. In the light of the aforesaid, no ground to exercise writ
jurisdiction is made out.
40. The present petitions along with pending applications are
accordingly dismissed.
41. A copy of the order be placed in the connected matter.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 30, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16113/2026 & W.P.(C) 16126/2026 Page 17 of 17
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
21:00:39