Separate registration and admission criteria require General PwD candidates to secure 40% for admission.

The petitioner, an aspirant for the ANM(R) & GNM-2026 selection process, obtained a General Merit Rank of 43,390 for GNM and 41,697 for ANM(R).

She participated in the e-counselling process pursuant to the notification dated 13 August 2026.

Although she belonged to the General PwD category and possessed a valid disability certificate, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had secured 38% marks in the 10+2 examination, whereas 40% was required for admission.

The petitioner contended that the e-counselling notification prescribed 35% for reserved categories and that PwD candidates should receive the benefit applicable to reserved categories.

The Board argued that the 35% requirement applied only at the registration stage, while Clause 3.1 prescribed 40% as the minimum qualification for admission; it also raised non-joinder of the concerned college authority.

Whether the petitioner, having participated as a General PwD candidate and secured 38% marks in the 10+2 examination, satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement for admission under the e-counselling notification.

Whether the 35% qualifying percentage prescribed for reserved categories at the registration stage could be applied to the petitioner at the admission stage.

Whether the principle recognised in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., (2021) 19 SCC 813, entitled the petitioner to the benefit applicable to reserved-category candidates.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the terms of the e-counselling notification, particularly Clause 2.0, which prescribed 40% marks for General/EWS candidates and 35% for reserved-category candidates for the purpose of registration, and Clause 3.1, which prescribed at least 40% aggregate marks in the 10+2 examination as the eligibility criterion for admission.

It held that registration and admission are distinct stages of the selection process and that the eligibility requirement applicable at the admission stage could not be diluted by importing the registration-stage requirement.

The Court further applied the principle that the “rules of the game” in a selection process must be fixed in advance and cannot be altered or interpreted liberally midway, consistently with the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., (2021) 19 SCC 813, was distinguished because that case did not involve interpretation of a specific pre-existing selection rule.

The Court harmoniously construed Clauses 2.0 and 3.1 of the notification.

It held that the 35% threshold under Clause 2.0 governed only registration, enabling a candidate to enter the counselling process, whereas Clause 3.1 independently required 40% marks for admission.

Since the petitioner had secured only 38%, she did not satisfy the admission-stage requirement, notwithstanding her General PwD status.

The Court declined to extend the reserved-category threshold to her because the notification did not prescribe a separate qualifying percentage for General PwD candidates and the Court could neither add to nor exclude from the expressly framed rules.

The reliance on Aryan Raj was rejected as misplaced, as the governing rule itself was not under challenge and had to be strictly applied.

The rejection was therefore lawful, and no interference under Article 226 was warranted.

The writ petition, WPA 23364 of 2026, was dismissed without an order as to costs.

Parties were permitted to act on the server copy of the order, and a certified photocopy was directed to be furnished expeditiously upon application.