Madras HC Orders Unrestricted PG Choices For Service Doctor, Citing Clause Letting Government Seek 5 Years’ Post-Course Service Beyond Superannuation

The petitioner appeared for NEET-PG 2026, secured 276 marks, and applied for postgraduate admissions under the prospectus issued on 7 October 2026. The online portal restricted her from selecting postgraduate courses because she did not meet the requirement of five years’ remaining service after completing the course.

She challenged that restriction, relying on Clause 37(e) of the prospectus, which contemplated that a service candidate with less than five years’ remaining service could undertake to serve the Government for five years after completing the course, irrespective of superannuation. The respondents relied on Clause 11, which stated that service candidates applying under the Service Quota should have at least five years of remaining service at the end of the course.

Clause 11 of the 2026–2027 P.G. Degree/Diploma Courses Prospectus required service candidates applying under the Service Quota to have at least five years of service remaining at the end of the course.

Clause 37(e) provided that service candidates with less than five years of service after completing the course could be required to serve the Government for five years from the date of clearing the examination, irrespective of their superannuation date, and were to furnish an undertaking to that effect. The Court read the clauses together: where a candidate had less than five years of service remaining, the Government could obtain an undertaking and utilise the candidate’s services for five years after the course.

The Court acknowledged that Clause 11 appeared to require five years of remaining service, but held that Clause 37(e) addressed candidates who would have a shorter period of service and allowed the Government to secure their services for five years after the course, irrespective of superannuation.

Because the Government had provided for that alternative, the online portal’s automatic restriction of the petitioner’s course choices was improper. The Government could obtain an undertaking from her if necessary.

The respondents stated that they would communicate the order to ensure the portal was opened for her before the choice-filling deadline. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.