MP High Court upholds lock on changing categories during medical counselling, citing deadlines and fairness to verified candidates

The petitioners, who had registered for and participated in earlier rounds of NEET-UG 2026 state counselling, sought permission during the Mop-Up round to edit their profiles and change their category to the NRI quota.

They alleged that previously registered candidates were barred from editing their profiles while fresh candidates could register and select a category, and challenged Rules 6(ख), 6(ग), 12(2), 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018.

The State opposed relief on the grounds of statutory finality, verification constraints and the prescribed counselling schedule; it also submitted that Mop-Up registration had closed on 2 October 2026 and the merit list had been published on 3 October 2026.

Whether the restrictions under Rules 6(ख), 6(ग) and 12(2), including the different treatment of previously registered and fresh candidates, were arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14

Whether Rules 13 and 14, providing for conversion of unfilled NRI seats, were unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary

Whether the Court should direct the State to reopen the portal or permit the petitioners to change category and participate in the Mop-Up round despite the published schedule and merit list

The Court considered Rules 6(ख), 6(ग), 12(2), 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, treating the restrictions on profile changes as serving finality and orderly counselling, and the conversion of vacant NRI seats as a pre-published mechanism for reallocating seats.

It applied Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, holding that participation in professional education is subject to reasonable statutory procedures and that the rules did not violate the petitioners’ asserted rights.

The Court also relied on Regulations 4.3 and 4.5 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which require merit-based counselling in accordance with the prescribed schedule and prohibit admissions outside that process.

It referred to P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, Ashish Ranjan (order dated 23 March 2026), and National Medical Commission v. Vedantaa Institute of Medical Science & Ors. (order dated 6 April 2026), in considering vacant seats, adherence to cut-off dates and interim directions in admission matters.

The Court held that candidates who had registered in earlier rounds and fresh Mop-Up registrants were distinct classes, and that restricting profile edits for the former rationally served the administration and verification of counselling.

It found that registration had closed, the merit list had been published and choice filling had begun; reopening the portal would require fresh verification and revised lists, disrupting the prescribed timetable.

The Court also noted that 268 eligible NRI candidates were competing for 175 MBBS NRI vacancies, rejecting the claim that the State had artificially restricted the candidate pool.

It considered the seat-conversion rules a means of reallocating seats rather than wasting them, and found that the applicable regulations and Supreme Court directions weighed against altering the process at that stage.

The constitutional challenge and all three writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.