Authorities must decide representation on omitted in-service seats after hearing before commencement of third-round counselling.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Kanyakumari Government Medical College and Hospital and an in-service postgraduate medical doctor, secured 198/600 marks and All India Rank 5964 in NEET-SS 2025.

Tamil Nadu’s State Counselling Authorities published a seat matrix for the 50% in-service quota pursuant to G.O.(Ms.) No. 462.

Following directions in W.P. No. 12971 of 2026 and W.P. (C) No. 415 of 2026, the qualifying cut-off was reduced to the 30th percentile to enable filling of vacant in-service seats before 6 October 2026.

The seat matrix published on 21 September 2026 disclosed only 43 seats, allegedly omitting vacant super-speciality seats, including DM-Nephrology and DM-Cardiology seats.

The petitioner submitted a representation on the same date requesting inclusion of all seats reverted to the State quota in the seat matrix for the third round of counselling. As no response was received, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the State authorities to consider and dispose of the representation.

1. Whether respondents 4 to 6 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 21 September 2026 concerning the alleged omission of vacant in-service super-speciality seats from the seat matrix.

2. Whether the Court should direct inclusion of the alleged vacant DM-Nephrology, DM-Cardiology, and other reverted seats in the seat matrix for the third round of counselling.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a limited mandamus requiring the competent authorities to consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law.

The Court applied the procedural principle that an affected person must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing before an administrative decision prejudicially affecting his asserted rights or interests is taken.

The Court also relied on the governing counselling framework, including Tamil Nadu’s 50% in-service quota under G.O.(Ms.) No. 462 and the directions concerning reduction of the NEET-SS qualifying cut-off to the 30th percentile, while leaving the substantive correctness of the seat matrix open for determination by the authorities.

The Court did not adjudicate whether the alleged vacant seats had in fact been reverted to the Tamil Nadu State quota or whether they were legally required to be included in the third-round seat matrix.

Instead, it noted that the petitioner’s representation raised a matter requiring consideration by respondents 4 to 6 and that the representation had not been acted upon.

Exercising its limited mandamus jurisdiction, the Court directed the competent authorities to consider the representation on its merits, in accordance with law, and after providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court did not itself order inclusion of DM-Nephrology, DM-Cardiology, or any other seats in the seat matrix.

No order was made as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.