[2025:RJ-JP:51733] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19263/2025 Dr Sneh Choudhary S/o Hawa Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o C-109, Shesh Narayan Society, New V.i.p. Road, Vadodara, Guajrat, Currently Residing At Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Service, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director/ Additional Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.). 3. Office Of Chairman, NEET P.G. Admission Counselling Board-2025, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Gangwal Park, Adarsh Nagar, 302004 Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 077 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra S. Saharan Mr. Sunil Kumar Swami Mr. Shubham Chaudhary Mr. Ankit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, AAAG for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Mr. Praduman Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 19/12/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the non- inclusion of the petitioner in the provisional state merit list of round 1 of PG Medical candidates issued by NEET PG Admission/Counseling Board-2025, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, regarding State Medical PG Seats Allotments, 2025. [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (2 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] 2. The primary argument of Mr. Mahendra S. Saharan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the merit list published by respondent No.3 – NEET P.G. Admission Counselling Board-2025 on 22.11.2025, the name of the petitioner finds place at S.No. 3804 as he has secured 240 marks and was shown under OBC-CL (Other Backward Classes – Creamy Layer) category, however, for reasons best known to the respondents, the said merit list was withdrawn by the respondent No.3 and a revised merit list was issued on 23.11.2025 wherein, name of the petitioner was excluded. Learned counsel submits that the cut-off score for qualification under SC/ST/OBC category is 235 marks whereas, the petitioner has scored 240 marks and thus, there was no occasion for his name to be excluded from the revised merit list published on 23.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the category of OBC cannot be bifurcated into OBC-CL (Other Backward Classes – Creamy Layer) and OBC-NCL (Other Backward Classes – Non-Creamy Layer) and once it is not disputed that the petitioner falls under the category of OBC, may be OBC-CL, all the benefits which are available to the candidates of OBC category have to be given to the petitioner. 4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner handed over certain documents across the dais to substantiate his submissions that the respondents in a discriminatory manner has granted benefit of OBC category to certain other candidates falling under the category of OBC-CL and thus, it is not open for the respondents to deny benefit to the petitioner solely on the ground that petitioner’s category of ‘OBC-CL’ has to be considered as ‘general’ category. [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (3 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents being State instrumentality cannot be permitted to discriminate amongst candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that SC/ST/OBC-NCL candidates of other states, though, have been shown as ‘general’ in the provisionally considered category, have been considered on the basis of cut-off marks of SC/ST/OBC category, and consequently it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the petitioner’s name be included in the merit list thereby, enabling him to participate in the counselling. 6. E-converso, Mr. Yash Joshi, learned AAAG and Mr. Praduman Singh Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the respondents fervently submitted that a bare perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner has relied upon the cut-off marks of ‘OBC’ category, whereas, in view of the fact that the petitioner undisputedly belongs to ‘OBC-CL’ category, the cut-off marks of ‘general’ category would be applicable upon him. Accordingly, it was submitted that as the cut-off marks of ‘general’ category was 276, and cut-off marks of SC/ST/OBC category was 235, the name of the petitioner was wrongly included in the first merit list published on 22.11.2025 and it was rightly revised on the very next day and consequently, the name of the petitioner was excluded therefrom. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that a candidate under the OBC category, to be considered under the ‘general’ category for all purposes, cannot claim the benefit of cut-off marks of SC/ST/OBC category. [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (4 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] 8. Learned counsel further submits that the National Board of Examination in its information booklet for NEET-PG (MD/MS/DNB) COUNSELLING 2025, has specifically mentioned in Clause 9.2 ADMISSION (x.) c) that the OBC candidates should not belong to creamy layer. The relevant clause reads as under:- “9.2 ADMISSION i. ….. ii. ….. iii. ….. iv. ….. v. ….. vi. …… vii. …… viii. …… ix. …… x. ……. a) …….. b) …….. c) OBC certificate issued by the competent authority. The sub-caste should tally with the Central List of OBC. The OBC candidates should not belong to Creamy Layer. The OBC certificate must be in the format as mentioned in the prospectus for All India counselling. Thetranslated certificate must be certified by a Gazetted Officer. The annual income/status of the parents of the applicant should be based on financial year ending March 31, 2025. (Essential document) d) …… e) …….” 9. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submits that the documents which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submission qua discrimination cannot be relied upon, as neither they are part of the record nor there is any averment with respect to the same in the petition and they were handed over only during the course of the arguments. The [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (5 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] said ground finds no place in the petition, thereby depriving them an opportunity to counter the same. However, learned counsel for the respondents specifically denies any such discrimination being done by the State with any of the candidates and submits that the said submission is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be outrightly rejected. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is a trite law that the pleadings on record forms the basis of every adjudication and relying upon any documentation, that too without granting any reasonable opportunity to the other side to counter the same would defeat the interest of justice. Pleadings on record reveals that the basis for filing the writ petition is the initial inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the merit list and then an arbitrary exclusion of the same in the revised merit list issued on the very next day. None of the grounds raised in the petition travels beyond the said ground and thus, the reply so filed by the respondents is expected to cover the contentions so raised in the writ petition. 12. A perusal of the reply reveals that the aspect with respect to the initial inclusion of the petitioner on account of having obtained 240 marks and the subsequent exclusion of him in the revised merit list published on 23.11.2025 has been duly justified on the ground that undisputedly the petitioner falls in the category of OBC-CL and for all purposes the candidates of OBC-CL category are to be treated as ‘general’ category candidates and are not entitled to any benefit which are prescribed for OBC category candidates. [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (6 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] 13. As a matter of fact, the petition itself ought to have mentioned the said facts, which for the reasons best known to the petitioner, are not mentioned therein. It is a matter of record that the minimum qualifying/eligibility criteria for all the candidates is as under:- Category Minimum Qualifying/ Eligibility Criteria Cut-Off Scores (Out of 800) General/EWS 50th Percentile 276 General PwBD 45th Percentile 255 SC/ST/OBC (Including PwBD of SC/ST/OBC) 40th Percentile 235 The above being an uncontroverted fact, the petitioner, who belongs to OBC-CL category, which as per the settled law is to be treated under the ‘general’ category, could not have been included in the merit list under the ‘OBC’ category and thus, no illegality have been committed by the respondents in revising the merit list. 14. The cut-off marks of 235 for SC/ST/OBC category cannot be made a basis for the petitioner to claim his entry into the merit list as he belongs to OBC-CL category and thus, the revision in merit list resulting into exclusion of the petitioner deserves no interference. Further, the submission of the petitioner that the category of OBC has to be read as a whole and once the petitioner falls within the category of OBC, may be OBC-CL, he deserves to be validated on the basis of minimum eligibility/cut-off marks of 235, is misconceived as once he is treated as a ‘general’ category candidate then the cut-off marks i.e. 276 herein, will be applicable on the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:51733] (7 of 7) [CW-19263/2025] 15. Also the argument qua the discrimination being raised by the petitioner of permitting certain other students who belong to SC/ST/OBC-CL category of other states and they being considered by the respondents in the merit list despite scoring marks less than the cut-off marks of ‘general’ category, deserves no consideration at this stage, as the same is neither substantiated by any pleadings nor by any document on record. 16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /100