- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3772 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ASRAJABEEN D/O MOHAMMED RAFI AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NO.786, ASRA MANSION, SARDAR VALLABAI PATEL ROAD, NEAR SIDDARATHA BED COLLEGE, AMARAJYOTHI NAGAR, TUMKUR- 572 105 2. KAWALE AJAY SHIVAJI S/O SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NEHRU NAGAR MURUM TALUKA, OMERGA DISTRICT, OSMANABAD MAHARASTRA - 413 605. 3. HARSHADA DATTU NARASINGE D/O DATTU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, DATTA NARASINGE, MALWATI ROAD, SIDESHWAR NAGAR, LATUR DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA – 413 512 4. CHAVARE VINAY SANJV. S/O SANJEEV CHAVARE, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, TAKALI BK, PO JAMNER, DIST. JALGOON MAHARASTRA- 424 206. 5. MAHENEMAT MOHD. HAIDER ALI ANSARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, PART NO.4, GAUTAM NAGAR, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 PO SHIVAJINAGAR, MUMBAI- 400 043. 6. AKRAM RAZA ANSARI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, PLOT NO.2560, WARD NO.4, DAHEGAON PO, DIST. NAGPUR- 441 113. 7. VISHAL KUMAR, S/O RAMACHANDRA KESHRI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, WARD NO.06, NEAR VAISHNAVI DURGA MANDIR, BAKHRI, BAKHRI, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR- 848 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL) M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 012 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 3. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM) OFFICE NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, D-BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 058 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R-1; SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R- 2 AND R-3 TO CONDUCT COUNSELING WITH RESPECT TO U.G AND P.G AYUSH 2024 COURSES TO THE PETITIONERS OR IN ALTERNATIVE DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL ONLINE STRAY VACANCY ROUNDS IN RESPECT TO ADMISSION TO UG AND PG AYUSH COURSES FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2024 IN RESPECT OF UNFILLED / VACANT / SEATS WITH RESPECT TO INSTITUTIONS REGISTERED WITH R-2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a) Issue, A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 3rd & 2nd respondent to Conduct Counseling with respect to U.G. & P.G Ayush 2024 Courses to the petitioners or in alternative directing the 2nd respondent to conduct additional online stay Vacancy Rounds in respect to Admissions to UG & PG Ayush Courses for Academic year 2024 in respect of unfilled / vacant / seats with respect to institutions registered with 2nd Respondent; and b) Pass such other order / relief as the circumstance of the case warrants, in the ends of the justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Communication at Annexure – D dated 08.01.2025 in order to point out that even after the said cut-off date stated therein as 13.01.2025 all the seats have not been filled up and petitioners, who are otherwise eligible to get admission would be entitled to get admission in relation to the vacant seats, which has not been filled up by the respondent and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – KEA and learned AGA for respondent No.1 jointly submit that even as per Annexures – D and E1, the last cut-off date for admission to ASU under graduate for the academic year 2024-25 was only upto 13.01.2025, which has been specifically directed to be the final extension in terms of Annexures – D and E1. It is therefore submitted that the question of issuing any direction against the respondent in relation to the unfilled seats at the request of the petitioners would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly, it is submitted that even assuming that the some - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 of the seats remain vacant after cut-off date, the same are incapable of being filled up and not permitted in law as per the following judgments of the Apex Court and this Court: (i) Neelu Arora (Ms) and another – (2003)3 SCC 366; (ii) Dr. Astha Goel and others Vs. Medical Counselling Committee and others – 2022 SCC Online SC 734 & (iii) K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical Institution and Hospital Vs. The Union of India – W.P.No.29487/2024 dated 04.02.2025 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the Communication at Annexure – D and E1 will clearly indicate that the cut-off date was originally 31.12.2024 and the same was extended only upto 13.01.2025 as can be seen from the aforesaid Communication at Annexures – D and E1 dated 08.01.2025. In fact, the said communication clearly indicates that no further extension of time shall be granted and extension granted upto 13.01.2025 would be the final extension. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the question of issuing directions to the respondent to consider and fill up all the vacant seats at the request of the petitioners would not arise in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 facts and circumstances of the present case and the contention of the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted. 7. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3 – NCISM, the question / issue as regards filling up of vacant seats after the cut-off date is concerned has been answered by the Apex Court in Neelu’s case supra, wherein it is held as under: “6. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders of this Court and the manner in which it has to be worked out is also indicated therein, we do not think that if in a particular year there is any shortfall or a certain number of seats are not filled up, the same should be done by adopting one more round of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering the Scheme as and when seats are found vacant. What is to be borne in mind is that broad equality will have to be achieved and not that it should result in any mathematical exactitude. Out of about 1600 seats, if 250 seats are not filled up for various reasons, we do not think it should result in the third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under the all-India quota are filled up. That is not the object of the Scheme formulated by this Court. The object was to achieve a broad-based equality as indicated by us at the outset and we do not think that any steps have to be taken for altering the Scheme. Moreover, this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 has taken the view that there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education. Even if seats are unfilled, that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year. If these aspects are borne in mind, we do not think any reliefs as sought for by the petitioners can be granted under these petitions. 7. Interlocutory applications filed shall stand disposed of in view of the order made by us in the main petitions. 8. These petitions shall stand dismissed.” 8. Similarly, in Dr. Astha Goel’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under: “18. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the dispute is with respect to the NEET-PG-2021 and the time schedule for the approved counselling has been fixed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and/or approved by this Court. Ordinarily, the first round of counselling in PG courses begins in the month of March of every academic year and subsequently the academic session begins from the month of May of every academic year. However, NEET-PG-2021 examination was delayed due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic and various litigations across the nation implementing the 27% OBC reservation in AIQ seats. 19. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per the earlier counselling policy, only two rounds of counselling were being held for all-India quota seats and State quotas. The modified scheme of counselling for academic year 2021-2022 and onwards was submitted before this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 10487 of 2021 and this Court approved the same. As per the modified scheme of counselling, this time four rounds of counselling have been undertaken for all-India quota seats as well as States' Quotas each. That thereafter one another round of counselling was conducted pursuant to the subsequent order [Nihila P.P. v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3283] passed by this Court, as approximately 146 seats were added. The NEET-PG-2021 counselling commenced on 12-1- 2022 and after completion of the four rounds of counselling for all- India quota seats and State quotas (in all eight rounds of counselling), out of 40,000 seats, 1456 seats have remained vacant. It appears that out of 1456 seats approximately more than 1100 seats are with respect to the non-clinical courses and the remaining are with respect to the clinical courses and all the seats are with respect to the private institutions. The respective petitioners are claiming admission on the remaining vacant seats and have prayed for to direct the respondents to conduct a special stray round of counselling. The main submission on behalf of the petitioners, as noted hereinabove, is that as large number of seats have remained vacant, the same be filled in by conducting additional/special stray round of counselling for the seats remaining vacant, which are mostly non-clinical courses, which remained even after eight or nine rounds of counselling. The students cannot still pray for admission on those seats remaining vacant after approximately one year of academic session and remaining vacant after eight or nine rounds of counselling. 20. At this stage, the decisions of this Court in the case of Supreet Batra (supra) and Education Promotion Society for India (supra) are required to be referred to. 21. In the case of Supreet Batra (supra), it is observed and held that even if some seats remain vacant, the students cannot be admitted mid-term. In para 7, it is observed and held as under:- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 “7. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders of this Court and the manner in which it has to be worked out is also indicated therein, we do not think that if in a particular year there is any shortfall or a certain number of seats are not filled up, the same should be done by adopting one more round of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of counselling under the Scheme. It would not be advisable to go on altering the Scheme as and when seats are vacant. What is to be borne in mind is that broad equality will have to be achieved and not that it should result in any mathematical exactitude. Out of about 1600 seats, if 200 seats are not filled up for various reasons and such not-filled-up seats were much less in the earlier years, we do not think it should result in the third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under the all-India quota are filled up. That is not the object of the Scheme formulated by this Court. The object was to achieve a broad-based equality as indicated by us at the outset and we do not think that any steps have to be taken for altering the Scheme. We have taken identical view in the decision in Neelu Arora v. Union of India [Neelu Arora v. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 366] and connected matters disposed of on 24-1-2003. Moreover, this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 : 5 SCEC 290] has taken the view that there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year. If these aspects are borne in mind, we do not think any reliefs as sought for by the petitioners can be granted under these petitions. These writ petitions shall stand dismissed.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 22. In case of Education Promotion Society for India (supra), the writ petitioners like the petitioners in the present case prayed for extension of time schedule and prayed for the additional counselling. This Court negated the same. This Court also took the note of the fact that every year large number of non-clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do not want to do postgraduation in non-clinical subjects. Thereafter, it is observed and held that merely because the seats are lying vacant, it is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. It is observed that the schedule must be followed. While holding so, it is observed in para 6 as under:- “6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual college or university but generally on the ground that a large number of seats for the PG courses are lying vacant. It is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant. However, it is important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in non- clinical subjects. There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard to the remaining 400-500 seats. This Court however can take judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of non-clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do not want to do postgraduation in non- clinical subjects. Merely because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a Pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule will be defeated.” - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 23. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when the Medical Counselling Committee and the Union of India have to adhere to the time schedule for completing the admission process and when the current admission of NEET-PG-2021 is already behind time schedule and even after conducting eight to nine rounds of counselling, still some seats, which are mainly non- clinical courses seats have remained vacant and thereafter when a conscious decision is taken by the Union Government/the Medical Counselling Committee, not to conduct a further special stray round of counselling, it cannot be said that the same is arbitrary. The decision of the Union Government and the Medical Counselling Committee not to have special stray round of counselling is in the interest of medical education and public health. There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of medical education, which may ultimately affect the public health. 24. The process of admission and that too in the medical education cannot be endless. It must end at a particular point of time. The time schedule has to be adhered to, otherwise, ultimately, it may affect the medical education and the public health. 25. Apart from the fact that after closure of the last round of counselling on 7-5-2022, the entire software mechanism has been closed and the security deposit is refunded to the eligible candidates, it is to be noted that the admission process for NEET- PG-2022 has already begun, the results for the NEET-PG-2022 has been announced on 1-6-2022 and as per the time schedule, the counselling process is going to start in July 2022. Therefore, if one additional special stray round of counselling is conducted now, as prayed for, in that case, it may affect the admission process for NEET-PG-2022. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 26. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and held that even after eight to nine rounds of counselling, out of 40,000 seats, 1456 seats have remained vacant, out of which approximately, more than 1100 seats are non-clinical seats, which every year remain vacant, of which the judicial notice has been taken by this Court in Education Promotion Society for India (supra). 27. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a special stray round of counselling for filling up the remaining vacant seats of NEET-PG- 2021. Granting of such relief now may affect the medical education and ultimately the public health as observed hereinabove. 28. Under the circumstances, both these writ petitions and the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 9. It is also pertinent to note that in relation to the very same academic year 2024-25 in respect of identically situated students, in relation to the UG and PG ASU course, in the case of K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical Institution and Hospital’s case, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: 8. It is submitted that in the instant case, time had been extended till 13th of January, 2025 to make admissions by the authorities in question and that classes had started only thereafter and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be granted permission to make admissions to the four vacant seats as well. However, we notice that this Court in the judgment relied on by the learned - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 counsel appearing for NCISM, has considered the relevant aspects of the matter and has held as under; "12. The issue involved in these writ petitions is that the seats in petitioner Institutions are not filled up and they have approached this Court seeking extension of the counselling process and last date for admission. 13. The fact that there are many seats left unfilled in the Institutions is undisputed. The question as to whether extra rounds of counselling can be held due to the unfilled seats has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Arora and Anr Vs. Union of India and Ors1, relied upon by Ms. Mansi. It was held that: “6.….Out of about 1600 seats, if 250 seats are not filled up for various reasons, we do not think it should result in the third round of counselling. If that process is to be adopted then there will be again vacancies and further filling up of the seats falling vacant will have to be undertaken. In that process, it will become endless until all the seats under the All-India Quota are filled up. ….. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions and there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year.” (Emphasis Supplied) 14. In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. and Ors2, the Apex Court has observed that in respect of a technical course, to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct. The relevant Para reads thus: "Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the mid- stream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained." (Emphasis Supplied) - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 15. It is important to note that no student has approached this Court seeking extension. It is only the institutions. Ms. Mansi is right in her submission that there are not many takers for the seats in the course offered by the petitioner institutions and hence, the seats have been remained unfilled. 16. Another important point is that the classes have commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extended, it cannot be limited only to petitioner institutions excluding other Ayurvedic Institutions across the State. This would result in discontinuance of the academic schedule and the newly admitted students would not be able to cope up with the course." 9. Having considered the contentions advanced and the admitted facts of this case, we are also not inclined to hold that the petitioner- Institution is entitled to extension of time to make admissions to the four vacant seats. 10. In the above view of the matter, the dismissal order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush dated 28.11.2024, is quashed. However, the further prayer made in IA No.1/2025 to direct the respondents to extend the last date of admission till filing up of the four vacant seats in the petitioner's college, is rejected. 11. The writ petition is disposed of recording that the petitioner has made admissions to 38 seats out of 42 seats, for which, permission had been granted. “ 10. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are students, who are seeking directions to the respondent to fill up the vacant seats after cut-off date, which is clearly impermissible in law as held in the aforesaid judgments. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13375 WP No. 3772 of 2025 11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3