Bombay High Court rejects plea to combine DNH and Daman-Diu reservation pools for MBBS admissions

The Petitioner sought admission to the MBBS course for Academic Year 2026–2027 under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category.

The prospectus allocated one SC seat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH), and the Petitioner was second on the DNH SC merit list.

The Court had earlier permitted her to withdraw a related petition and bring a fresh challenge to the 2026–2027 allocation.

1. Whether the DNH and D&D seat pools had to be combined following the merger of the two Union Territories, with a consequential change to the SC allocation.

2. Whether prior Central Government or National Medical Commission approval was required for the challenged allocation or reduction in merit-pool seats.

3. Whether the Petitioner could obtain relief after participating in the admission process with knowledge of the published seat distribution.

4. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to interim protection or admission to an SC seat.

Section 2(c) of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (Merger of Union Territories) Act, 2019 preserves enactments and other instruments having force of law in the respective territories immediately before the appointed day.

Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, now Section 28 of the National Medical Commission Act, concerns an increase in a medical college’s admission capacity and does not govern the allocation of seats among categories or territorial pools.

The Court also applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process knowing the published rules and seat distribution cannot subsequently challenge that distribution after the outcome proves unfavourable.

The Office Memorandum dated 17 January 2019 and the interim order in Ms. Larissa Rohit v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, W.P. No. 8532 of 2023, were considered but held inapplicable to the Petitioner’s case.

The Court found that the merger did not require the DNH and D&D seat pools to be combined: under Section 2(c) of the Merger Act, the pre-existing territorial reservation arrangements continued, reflecting the territories’ distinct demographics and local needs.

It held that Section 10A, now Section 28 of the NMC Act, addressed increases in admission capacity, not seat allocation; accordingly, NMC approval was not required for the allocation challenged here.

The Court also rejected the Central Government-approval argument, noting that the prospectus had been formulated and issued by Respondent No. 5 as an autonomous registered society, and held the cited Office Memorandum inapplicable.

Finally, the Petitioner had applied with knowledge that DNH had one SC seat and had participated in counselling without demur; she ranked second in that category and therefore had no basis for admission to the sole seat.

The earlier Larissa Rohit interim order concerned an EWS challenge under Article 15(6) and did not govern this case.

As the Petitioner had abandoned her challenge to the NRI and Management quotas and ranked second for a single DNH SC seat, she was not entitled to admission or interim protection.

The petition was dismissed without an order as to costs.