Facts
The Petitioner, a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officer in the Army Medical Corps, sought admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the 2025-28 session
Source reference: para. 4Admissions were governed by a priority system: Priority-I for serving AFMS officers and Priority-IV for SSC officers in their last year of service or within three years of release
Source reference: para. 3Rule 11 of the notification dated 21.03.2025 prohibited any change of priority on or after the date of the NEET PG Exam
Source reference: para. 5The Petitioner initially applied under Priority-I in April 2025
Source reference: para. 7On 15.07.2025, she sent an email explicitly requesting to be considered under Priority-I
Source reference: para. 9, 18The NEET PG exam was held on 03.08.2025.
Source reference: para. 9Following the declaration of results, on 19.08.2025, the Petitioner requested a change to Priority-IV
Source reference: para. 9, 21The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed her Original Application, prompting this writ petition
Source reference: para. 1Issues
1. Whether a candidate can seek a change of priority status for PG medical admission after the stipulated cut-off date and the conclusion of the entrance examination.
Source reference: para. 22-232. Whether the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for civil employment/counseling (Priority-V) constitutes an official recognition or estoppel regarding a change to Priority-IV status.
Source reference: para. 14, sub-para 66, 75Law Applied
Rule 11 of the AFMS Notification dated 21.03.2025, which mandates that applications for change of priority will not be considered on or after the date of the NEET PG Exam
Source reference: para. 5Scottish doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate," as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manju Arora (2022) 2 SCC 151, which prevents a party from exercising a choice between two rights and subsequently asserting the other after irrevocably adopting one
Source reference: para. 14, sub-para 68Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner had made a conscious and specific choice to be considered under Priority-I via her email dated 15.07.2025, which was sent prior to the revised cut-off date of 01.08.2025
Source reference: para. 20, 22The Court rejected the Petitioner's claim that this email was a "clerical error," noting she failed to correct it before the exam
Source reference: para. 14, sub-para 73The Court emphasized that the request for Priority-IV on 19.08.2025 was an afterthought, made only after the exam results were known, which is explicitly prohibited by Rule 11 to maintain the integrity of the selection process
Source reference: para. 21, 23Regarding the NOC issued on 30.07.2025, the Court affirmed the AFT’s finding that an NOC for "Civil" candidature (Priority-V) is distinct from Priority-IV status and does not imply consent for a priority upgrade within the AFMS institutes
Source reference: para. 14, sub-para 66, 75The Court found no discrimination, distinguishing the Petitioner's case from others who were either ex-SSC officers or had submitted requests due to administrative delays before the cut-off
Source reference: para. 14, sub-para 70, 75Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioner, having voluntarily opted for Priority-I before the cut-off date, could not be permitted to switch to Priority-IV after the examination was conducted and results were declared
The Court found no illegality in the AFT's order and noted that all Priority-I seats were filled by candidates higher in merit than the Petitioner
Source reference: para. 24, 27No costs were awarded
Source reference: para. 28Original Court PDF
Major SangeetavsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in