Facts
The petitioner secured Serial No. 1 in the merit list for the MD (Homeopathy) PG course at the North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy (NEIAH), but his candidature was rejected for belated reporting on the counselling date of 02.12.2025, having arrived approximately two minutes late due to traffic congestion, delay at a fuel station, and mechanical issues with his vehicle.
Source reference: p.3, para.1; p.14, para.15In the first round of litigation, WP(C) No. 649 of 2025, this Court by judgment dated 17.12.2025 declined to direct creation of a supernumerary seat, holding the lapse attributable to the petitioner, but permitted him to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 6 with a direction to forward it to the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) to explore a supernumerary seat.
Source reference: p.3-4, para.1; p.10-11, para.11Notably, in those proceedings, the respondents' counsel had stated on instructions that only 2 (two) PG seats had been sanctioned.
Source reference: p.12, para.12The petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2025 was rejected by letter dated 08.01.2026 on the ground that the admission process for AY 2025-26 had concluded on 22.12.2025.
Source reference: p.4, para.1However, on 13.01.2026, the NCH issued a notification extending the admission cut-off date to 23.01.2026.
Source reference: p.4, para.2Further, the respondents' affidavit in the present petition disclosed that by letter dated 16.06.2025, the NCH had sanctioned an intake of 8 (eight) PG seats, yet the Institute advertised only 2 (two) — a fact withheld in the earlier proceedings.
Source reference: p.4, para.2The petitioner, an OBC category candidate, sought admission to the next academic session on the strength of his AIAPGET 2025 score.
Source reference: p.4, para.2; p.14, para.15Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation on the ground that the admission deadline had expired is sustainable, in view of the extension of the very deadline to 23.01.2026.
Source reference: p.9-10, para.10(i)2. Whether the denial of admission to a highly meritorious student belonging to the OBC category only on the ground of a marginal delay is reasonable.
Source reference: p.10, para.10(ii)3. Whether the petitioner can be accommodated in the next academic session using the same AIAPGET 2025 score.
Source reference: p.10, para.10(iii)Law Applied
The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including the power to mould relief.
Source reference: p.17, para.19S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 17 SCC 465, which authorises courts to direct admission in the next academic year — including by increasing seats — where the action of the authorities is found arbitrary, in breach of rules, and the meritorious candidate approached the court without delay.
Source reference: p.6, para.4; p.15, para.16Dr. Shireen Dkhar v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 1088, where this Court moulded relief by directing admission to a PG medical course in the next academic year on the same entrance score as a one-time, non-precedential equitable measure.
Source reference: p.6, para.4; p.16, para.17Reasoning
Applying S. Krishna Sradha, the Court first found the threshold condition of arbitrariness satisfied on two counts. First, the representation was rejected solely because the admission process had "concluded" on 22.12.2025, yet on the very day the petitioner received the rejection (13.01.2026), the NCH extended the cut-off to 23.01.2026; the Court held that "the extension being in place, there should have been no impediment" to considering the representation, rendering the premise for rejection "non-existent".
Source reference: p.13, para.13; p.13-14, para.14Second, the respondents had made a pointed statement in the earlier writ that only 2 PG seats were sanctioned, whereas the NCH letter dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure-A) revealed an intake capacity of 8 PG seats across 4 subjects — a suppression that obviated the need for any supernumerary seat at all.
Source reference: p.12, para.12; p.13-14, para.14On the second issue, the Court found the 2-minute delay neither deliberate nor mischievous, noting the petitioner's immediate on-spot representation dated 02.12.2025 and prompt legal recourse, and held that denying an OBC meritorious candidate admission for a "slight procedural irregularity would surely cause severe injustice".
Source reference: p.14, para.15Since accommodation in AY 2025-26 was no longer possible, and discerning "a large element of arbitrariness," the Court held the case squarely fit for moulded relief under S. Krishna Sradha para 13.3, reinforced by Shireen Dkhar, permitting use of the AIAPGET 2025 score notwithstanding the respondents' objection that the score was valid only for the 2025-26 session.
Source reference: p.14-15, para.16; p.16, para.17; p.9, para.9Holding
(i) the rejection of the representation was unsustainable as the extended cut-off date of 23.01.2026 removed any impediment to its consideration; (ii) denial of admission for a marginal, non-deliberate lapse was unreasonable and unjust, particularly given the petitioner's merit and OBC status; and (iii) the petitioner could be accommodated in the next academic session on his AIAPGET 2025 score by moulding of relief.
In exercise of powers under Article 226, as a one-time relaxation expressly not intended to create a precedent, the Court directed the Respondent Institute to grant admission to the petitioner in the next academic session on the basis of the marks obtained in the AIAPGET examinations held in July 2025. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Source reference: p.17, paras.19-20Original Court PDF
VASKAR SHILvsTHE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in