Mandatory adherence to admission schedules precludes granting medical seats after the cut-off date despite vacancies.

The petitioner, an EWS category medical graduate, appeared in NEET PG 2025, securing an All India Rank of 83,701

Despite participating in all counseling rounds, including the stray vacancy round, he was not allotted a seat.

The petitioner alleged that a candidate with a lower rank (1,06,660) was allotted a DNB seat under the EWS category

Through an RTI application, the petitioner discovered a vacant MD General Medicine seat at Government Medical College, Korba, and subsequently approached the High Court seeking admission against said vacancy, alleging arbitrary denial by the authorities

The respondents contended that the allotment process is automated, based on multiple parameters beyond rank, and that the admission cut-off date had already expired

Whether the allotment of a seat to a lower-ranked candidate constitutes an arbitrary violation of Article 14 of the Constitution when the process is governed by a centralized automated system

Whether the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct admission to a vacant medical seat after the expiration of the prescribed cut-off date

The Court primarily applied the principles of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs) of the Constitution of India

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465, which held that adherence to the cut-off schedule in medical admissions is mandatory, and admission after the deadline is permissible only in the "rarest of rare" cases where the candidate is not at fault

The Court reasoned that the NEET PG counseling process is a centralized, automated mechanism considering various factors, including rank, category, and specific choices exercised by candidates; therefore, the mere fact that a lower-ranked candidate secured a seat in a different course/college does not prove illegality or arbitrariness

The Court observed that the petitioner participated in all rounds voluntarily and cannot challenge the outcome after the conclusion of the process

Regarding the vacant seat, the Court emphasized that maintaining the sanctity of the cut-off schedule is essential for discipline in medical education

It determined that the petitioner failed to substantiate any mala fide or procedural illegality that would classify this as an "exceptional circumstance" or "rarest of rare" case under the S. Krishna Sradha doctrine

The Court declined to bypass the established counseling procedure, stating that granting admission post-cut-off would disturb the uniformity of the process

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner