Mere challenge to revised training rules does not warrant interim relief allowing exam participation under superseded guidelines.

The petitioners, Short Service Commission (SSC) officers in the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) since 2017–2018, sought to appear in the NEET PG Examination 2026

Under the "Training Rules 2018," SSC officers were eligible to take the exam between 4 to 10 years of service

However, the "Training Rules 2025," notified in November 2025, reduced this eligibility bracket to 4–7 years

Having completed over 7 years of service, the petitioners were rendered ineligible under the new rules.

They challenged these rules before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which refused to grant interim relief allowing them to apply for the 2026 exam

The petitioners moved the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the AFT’s orders dated 21st and 27th May 2026

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief permitting them to appear for the NEET PG 2026 examination despite the service bracket limitation under the Training Rules 2025

2. Whether the AFT erred in dismissing the prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the challenge to the validity of the Training Rules 2025

Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the High Court's discretionary power to review tribunal orders

Rule 14(a)(ii) of the Training Rules 2018 (granting a 10-year window) and Rule 7.2 of the Training Rules 2025 (reducing the window to 7 years)

The principle of prima facie case and balance of convenience for granting interim relief, noting that a policy in operation cannot be suspended or ignored merely because it is under legal challenge

The Court observed that the petitioners had been eligible under the previous rules since 2022/2023 but either failed to secure a seat or chose not to apply

It upheld the AFT’s finding that no prima facie case for interim relief existed because the Training Rules 2025 were currently in operation and had been known to the petitioners since November 2025

The Court reasoned that granting interim relief would be equivalent to staying the operation of a policy before final adjudication, which is impermissible in this context

Furthermore, the Court noted that if the petitioners eventually succeed in their challenge at the AFT, they would still have until 2028 per the 2018 Rules to sit for the exam, implying No irreparable loss would occur

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no error in the AFT’s refusal to grant interim relief. All pending applications were also dismissed