1 2025:CGHC:57441-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5706 of 2025 Yaesh Chandrakar S/o Nutun Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 22 Years R/o B00321, Dumar Talab Mohaba Bazar, Post Office- Tatibandh, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur C.G. 2 - The Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 3 - Medical Counselling Committee (M C C), Through Its Director, Directorate General Of Health Services (D G H S), Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi. 4 - Directorate Of Medical Education (C G D M E) Through Its Director, Directorate Of Medical Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G. 5 - National Medical Commission, Through Its Chairman, Sector-8 Dwarika, Phase-1, New Delhi. 6 - G I T A M Institute Of Medical Science And Research, Through Its Dean/principal G I T A M (Deemed To Be University), Gandhi Nagar Campus, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam-530045, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.27 17:25:16 +0530 2 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G., Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 4 / State, Mr. S.S. Marhas, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for respondents No 2 & 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 3 (MCC) to immediately provide a mechanism enabling the petitioner to submit his resignation letter from the allotted college, thereby permitting him to participate in the third round of counselling for NEET UG 2025-26. (ii) That, Direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion in the third round of CGDME counselling, the result of which is scheduled to be declared on 29.10.2025. (iii) Any other order/ orders, direction/ directions and relief/ reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and 3 proper in the facts and circumstance of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, belonging to the OBC category and being a domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh, appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) for the academic session 2025-26 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). Upon qualifying the examination, the petitioner was issued a valid NEET scorecard, making him eligible to participate in both the All-India Quota (AIQ) counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as well as the State-level counselling conducted by the Chhattisgarh Directorate of Medical Education (CGDME). The petitioner participated in the first rounds of both counselling processes, however, due to his rank position, he did not receive any allotment. During Round 2 of MCC counselling, the petitioner was allotted a seat in GITAM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.6), where he accordingly took admission. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered through NMC public notices dated 15.09.2025 and 11.10.2025 that additional MBBS seats had been sanctioned for the ongoing academic year, amounting to an increase of 200 seats across various medical colleges in Chhattisgarh, substantially altering the seat matrix and creating a genuine and improved opportunity for him to secure admission in a preferred college under the State quota. 4 4. The counselling scheme framed by both MCC and CGDME expressly permits a candidate who has already been allotted and admitted in an earlier round to participate in subsequent rounds, including Round 3 (Mop-up Round), provided he tenders his resignation to the earlier allotted college within the stipulated time and is duly relieved. Relying upon the officially declared MCC timeline, which displayed 01:00 PM of 30.09.2025 to 05:00 PM of 01.10.2025 as the last date for registration and choice filling for Round 3, the petitioner repeatedly addressed email representations requesting activation of the resignation option on the MCC portal. The CGDME, vide email dated 15.10.2025, affirmed the petitioner’s eligibility to participate in State Round 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s merit position improved significantly across all rounds, securing State OBC Rank 1277 in Round 1, Rank 991 in Round 2, and Rank 475 in Round 3, enhancing his chances of securing a State-quota MBBS seat. However, with the CGDME Round 3 results scheduled for declaration on 29.10.2025, the petitioner apprehends that unless MCC enables submission of his resignation on its portal, he will be deprived of his legitimate right to participate in further counselling. The petitioner thus filed this present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to provide an alternative mechanism to submit his resignation and permit his participation in Round 3 of NEET-UG 2025 counselling in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a bona fide domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh and belonging to the OBC category, is fully eligible to avail reservation benefits under the 5 State quota as per the applicable counselling rules, and having duly qualified the NEET-UG 2025 examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), he was issued a valid score card, enabling his participation in both the All-India and State-level counselling processes. It is further submitted that the petitioner participated in the counselling conducted by both the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and the Directorate of Medical Education, Chhattisgarh (CGDME), and although he was initially allotted a seat under the All India Quota in GITAM Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), the subsequent substantial enhancement of MBBS seats in the State of Chhattisgarh by the National Medical Commission (NMC) materially improved his prospects of securing admission in a preferred institution within his home State. Counsel submits that the petitioner has consistently improved his merit position across successive counselling rounds, securing State OBC Rank 1277 and State Rank 4201 in Round 1, State OBC Rank 991 and State Rank 2987 in Round 2, and State OBC Rank 475 and State Rank 1510 in Round 3 (Mop-up Round), thereby strengthening his legitimate expectation of admission under the State quota. It is urged that as per the settled rules governing MCC and CGDME counselling, a candidate already allotted a seat in an earlier round is entitled to resign from the previously allotted college within the prescribed period and thereafter participate in the next (third) round without any disqualification; however, despite repeated representations and despite CGDME having confirmed his eligibility vide email dated 15.10.2025, the MCC has failed to enable the resignation option on its 6 portal. This inaction, it is submitted, prevents the petitioner from furnishing his bona fide and procedural resignation which, in fairness, ought to remain visible and reflected on the MCC portal until completion of the mop-up round. The failure of the respondents to provide any alternative mechanism for submitting the resignation is thus asserted to be arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the petitioner’s rights to fair opportunity and equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that the present petition, which seeks to challenge the notice dated 30.09.2025 issued by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) fixing the timeline for participation in Round-III of NEET-UG counselling, is misconceived, as the said notice clearly stipulates that candidates who have obtained seats in Rounds I and II must tender their resignation from the previously allotted college before registering for the third round, however, the petitioner, despite being aware of this mandatory requirement, failed to comply with the prescribed procedure and took no timely steps to obtain a resignation acceptance letter from the concerned institution. It is submitted that although the petitioner belongs to the OBC category and is a domicile of Chhattisgarh, and though he participated in the first and second rounds of both MCC and CGDME counselling, securing admission in GITAM Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Visakhapatnam under the All-India Quota, his subsequent plea that he was unable to resign due to non-availability of an online mechanism is untenable, especially when the MCC, vide its circular dated 28.10.2025 issued pursuant to the 7 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 289/2020 in W.P. No. 223/2022 (Subhankar Patnaik v. K. Ramesh Reddy), mandated filtering of ‘Joined All-India Quota Candidates’ and expressly barred acceptance of resignations after publication of Round- III results. It is further contended that Round-III of UG Counselling 2025 has already been concluded, the result has been published, and there exists no provision for resignation at that stage; hence, all State Counselling Authorities were directed not to permit candidates already holding an AIQ seat to participate in State Round-III. The petitioner’s name admittedly appears in the admitted candidates list, and thus, being a Round-II AIQ candidate, he stood automatically precluded from withdrawing or submitting resignation. Learned State Counsel submits that the counselling process has been conducted strictly in accordance with law, in a transparent manner, and for the benefit of all eligible candidates, and that the petitioner’s lack of diligence, inability to secure requisite resignation acceptance, and failure to comply with statutory conditions cannot invalidate the entire counselling process. It is urged that no fault lies with MCC or CGDME, as the responsibility to obtain resignation acceptance rested solely with the petitioner and the concerned university and in absence of any pleading demonstrating illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity on part of the authorities, the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that, at the outset, it is necessary to highlight that the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry 8 of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, conducts online counselling for allotment of MBBS/BDS seats under the 15% All India Quota and for participating Deemed Universities strictly in accordance with the “Modified Scheme” approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 07.06.2012 in I.A. No. 35/2012 in W.P. (C) No. 443/1992 (Sharwan Kumar v. DGHS & Ors.), as well as the subsequent directions dated 09.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 267/2017 (Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust v. MCI & Ors.), and the Gazette Notification dated 27.06.2017 which designates DGHS as the sole authority for such counselling. It is submitted that the role of MCC is confined to allotment of seats on the basis of merit and choice after receipt of data from NTA. He further submits that the petitioner’s prayer to participate in the Stray Vacancy Round is wholly impermissible under the binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the order in SLP (C) No. 10487/2021 (Nihila P.P. v. MCC & Ors.), wherein it has been categorically held that up-gradation and free exit are available only in Round-I, and that candidates who have joined Round-II or subsequent rounds shall not be allowed to resign or participate in any further counselling. The same principle has been reiterated in W.P. No. 174/2022 (Anjana Chari S.N. v. MCC & Ors.). In compliance with these directions, MCC developed a centralized software portal to block candidates who have already joined seats under Round-II of AIQ or State quota, as further reinforced by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 289/2022 in W.P. (C) No. 223/2022 (Subhankar Pattanayak v. K. Ramesh Reddy & Ors.), 9 which mandates that such candidates are ineligible for subsequent rounds of counselling. It is therefore contended that, since upgradation was permitted only up to Round-III and the Information Bulletin expressly prohibits resignation after joining Round-III, no option for resignation can be provided to the petitioner at this stage. Moreover, candidates joining Round-III are barred from all subsequent counselling, and their names are to be filtered out from the All-India Stray Vacancy Round pursuant to Centre-State data-sharing. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no legal right to seek participation in further rounds after having joined a seat, and his claim is squarely barred by the binding policy and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is thus urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit, all allegations against the answering respondent are denied, and the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 – National Medical Commission (NMC) submits that the answering respondent opposes the submissions and reliefs sought by the petitioner, as the NMC has no role in the counselling process conducted by MCC/DGHS and no ground is made out against this respondent. It is submitted that the writ petition, insofar as it concerns Respondent No. 5, deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The record reflects that the 10 counselling process for NEET-UG admissions is strictly governed by the Modified Scheme approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in various above cited judgments. These binding directions unequivocally restrict resignation or withdrawal after Round 2/3 of counselling and prohibit participation in further rounds, including the Mop-up/Stray Vacancy Round, once a candidate has joined a seat pursuant to such rounds. The MCC has designed its portal in compliance with these mandates, leaving no discretion for deviation in individual cases. 10. In the present matter, the petitioner admittedly participated in the earlier rounds of AIQ counselling and joined the allotted MBBS seat. As per the applicable scheme, a candidate who has joined in Round 2 or further rounds is ineligible to resign or seek participation in subsequent rounds. The grievance of the petitioner regarding non-enablement of the resignation option on the portal, therefore, cannot be accepted, as the same is consistent with the uniform procedure mandated by the Apex Court. No arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural infirmity is demonstrated in the action of the respondent authorities. The petitioner’s claim of legitimate expectation for permitting participation in the Mop-up/Stray vacancy round is contrary to the governing rules and cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet