Astikya Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84827
1 WP-42305-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 42305 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010751382026
ASTIKYA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh and Shri Viraaj Shanker Jha - Advocates for the
petitioners.
Shri Vivek Sharma - Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated
21.09.2026 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that similar
issue has already been considered by this Court in W.P. No.41836/2026 and
connected cases and vide order dated 7th October, 2026 (uploaded in ERP)
the same have been dismissed.
3. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 23-10-
2026 17:58:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84827
2 WP-42305-2026
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 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 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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 23-10-
2026 17:58:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84827
3 WP-42305-2026
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 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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 23-10-
2026 17:58:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84827
4 WP-42305-2026
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. 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
ख ग
the Admission Rules, 2018. The 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.

4. In view of above, and considering the submission, the controversy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 23-10-
2026 17:58:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84827
5 WP-42305-2026
involved in the present petition stands squarely covered by the decision

passed in W.P. No.41836/2026 and connected cases, this also deserves to be
dismissed on the same terms.
5. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is also dismissed, with a
direction that the order dated 7th October, 2026 passed in W.P.
No.41836/2026 and connected cases shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case
at hand.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Shruti

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 23-10-
2026 17:58:42