SC NEET Candidate’s Quota Challenge Fails After Round-1 Free Exit; Chhattisgarh HC Cites No Proof Of Seat Conversion And Below-Cutoff Marks

In brief

The question

1. Whether seats in a reserved category could be converted or transferred during the second counselling round in the manner alleged, contrary to Rule 8(1) of the 2025 Rules.

The court held

The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

It also directed

It declined to quash the second-round allotment list or direct reconsideration and allotment of a seat to the petitioner.

01Facts

The petitioner, who appeared in NEET-UG 2026 as an SC-category candidate and scored 267 marks, was allotted a government-quota seat in the first counselling round but opted for free exit without taking admission.

pp. 2–3

She was not allotted a seat in the second or third rounds.

pp. 2–3

She alleged that management-quota seats had been converted to unreserved seats during the second round contrary to Rule 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental & Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, and sought reconsideration of the allotment.

pp. 2–3

The State submitted that she had not applied for management-quota seats in the first two rounds and had not challenged the second-round result before participating in the third round.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether seats in a reserved category could be converted or transferred during the second counselling round in the manner alleged, contrary to Rule 8(1) of the 2025 Rules.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner established that any such conversion prejudiced her entitlement to an SC-category seat.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Rule 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental & Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 provides that, where candidates of a reserved category are unavailable for seats remaining in that category after allotment in the second counselling round, those seats are to be converted or transferred in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Educational Institution (Pravesh Me Reservation) Adhiniyam, 2012.

p. 4

A claim of unlawful conversion must be supported by material establishing that the relevant seats were converted; an unsupported allegation is insufficient.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner had not applied for management-quota seats through the completion of the second round, so the alleged conversion of a management-quota seat could not have prejudiced her.

p. 4

She also participated in the third round without challenging the second-round result, and did not produce documents showing that a reserved-category government-quota seat had been converted to an unreserved seat during round two.

pp. 4–5

Further, the SC-category cutoff in the second round was higher than her score of 267 marks.

p. 5

The Court therefore found no basis for granting the requested relief.

p. 5