1 2025:CGHC:54333-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5768 of 2025 Tejal Belchandan D/o Chandrasekhar Belchandan Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 16 Anand Nagar, Gaurav Path, Ward No. 48 Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) Through Director General of Health Services (Associated Directorate), Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Government of India (GOI), Nirman Bhawan New Delhi (India) 2. National Medical Commission Through Its Chairman Address Pocket- 14, Sector- 8, Dwarka Phase- 1, New Delhi- 110077 (India) 3. ACS Medical College And Hospital Chennai Through Its Dean/ Principal/ Director (Sponsered By Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust- Constituent College Of Dr. Mgr Educational And Research Institute Deemed University, Registered Office Periyar Evr High Raod, Velappanchavadi, Chennai- 77, Tamil Nadu BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.07 16:12:48 +0530 2 4. State of Chhattisgarh Commissionerate of Medical Education Through Commissioner, North Block Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan 2nd Floor Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 5. Chhattisgarh Medical and Dental Counselling Committee Directorate of Medical Education Through President Room No. 503, Fifth Floor, New Block, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: 3 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents No. 1 to 3 and also call for the schedule which was changed multiple times by respondent No. 1 to conduct counselling for round 1 to 3 for proper adjudication of this case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondent authorities No. 1 to 2 to condone the delay of few hours in depositing fees (Demand Draft) and also direct to accept the documents of the petitioner and admit petitioner in UG-MBBS course accordingly consequent upon the admission process due to IInd round of counselling and also allotment letter issued on dated 16.09.2025 with up-gradation facilities in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court should also direct the respondent authorities No. 1 to 2 to adjust the security amount of the petitioner or remit back to the petitioner without forfeiting the same. 10.4 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG) – 2025 conducted by the National Testing Agency under the supervision of respondent No. 2 for the second consecutive year. The petitioner secured 74.9972955 percentile, attaining an All India Rank of 5,49,815 and a category rank of 1,65,282. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the counselling process conducted by respondent No. 1 and completed registration for the Open Seat, All India Quota (15%), and Deemed Universities. For the said purpose, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- on 27.07.2025 through an online transaction. The first round of allotment was issued on 12.08.2025; however, the petitioner availed the option of free exit and participated again in the second round, wherein an allotment letter dated 16.09.2025 was issued, allotting a seat to the petitioner in respondent No. 3 – ACS Medical College and Hospital. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 18.09.2025, respondent No. 3, through its Admission Cell, intimated the petitioner via e-mail regarding the said allotment and directed her to appear with all requisite documents for admission to the UG–MBBS course. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner’s parents visited the institution on 20.09.2025 to enquire about the admission procedure, and the petitioner personally appeared before the Admission Cell on 24.09.2025 for document verification. It is submitted that the guidelines issued by respondent No. 3 indicated that the payment of tuition fees could be made either through RTGS or by Demand Draft, along with 5 submission of the original documents. He further contends that before transferring the tuition fee of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the petitioner’s parents attempted to reconfirm the mode of payment. However, the staff of respondent No. 3 were engaged in internal celebrations during working hours, causing delay and confusion. Upon interaction with an officer of the Admission Cell, they were informed that only a Demand Draft payable at Chennai in favour of “A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital” would be accepted. The petitioner’s parents made all possible efforts to obtain the said Demand Draft through the State Bank of India, Chennai, which was finally issued around 5:45 p.m. on 25.09.2025. The petitioner’s father immediately shared the details of the Demand Draft with the Admission Cell through electronic means. However, respondent No. 3 insisted upon the physical presence of the petitioner along with the original Demand Draft before 6:00 p.m., despite having already verified the petitioner’s documents. The petitioner, on account of severe traffic congestion, could not reach the campus in time and requested that the admission process be completed through video conferencing, but the same was declined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the continuous presence of the petitioner’s parents at the institution since 20.09.2025, respondent No. 3 never specified in advance that only a Demand Draft would be accepted. Due to such lack of clarity, valuable time was lost in arranging the payment. On 26.09.2025, after returning home, the petitioner was informed telephonically that respondent No. 1 had extended the reporting time for Round-2 admissions till 8:00 p.m. 6 on 26.09.2025. It is submitted that the said extension notice was uploaded on the MCC website only around early afternoon, thereby making it practically impossible for the petitioner to reach Chennai again within such a short time. He further submits that the petitioner had personally presented herself before the college authorities, produced all original documents, and had even prepared the Demand Draft well before the extended deadline. The failure to grant admission was, therefore, solely due to the lack of proper coordination and the negligent approach of respondent No. 3’s officials, resulting in denial of admission and forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 2,05,000/-. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father immediately approached respondent No. 1 via e-mail on 26.09.2025, requesting extension of the reporting deadline by two more days to enable the petitioner to complete the admission formalities. Further requests were also made on the same day seeking permission to complete the process through video conferencing, considering that the circular was issued belatedly and the petitioner was suffering from health issues. No sympathetic consideration was extended. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed another communication on 28.09.2025 seeking permission for a “free exit” to enable participation in the third round of counselling without forfeiture of the security deposit, but no response was received. It is also contended that on 03.10.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No. 2 narrating the entire incident and requesting either completion of the admission process or adjustment of the earlier 7 security amount towards the third round of counselling. No reply was received. The petitioner also followed up via e-mail on 22.10.2025, but no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner had to again deposit Rs. 2,05,000/- on 05.10.2025 to participate in the third round of counselling, the results of which are still pending. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner further represented before the National Medical Commission, requesting that adequate time be provided to candidates to report at the allotted colleges whenever extensions are granted, and that accountability be fixed on institutions acting negligently. It is urged that due to the delay and refusal by respondent No. 3, the petitioner’s entire academic future stands jeopardized, apart from the forfeiture of her security deposit, for reasons not attributable to her. The petitioner’s father remained in continuous contact with the Admission Cell of respondent No. 3 through phone and messages, requesting that the petitioner be permitted to complete the process even if she arrived a few hours late. He also assured that the petitioner could reach the institution by midnight of 26.09.2025, given that the next available flight was scheduled to reach Chennai by 10:30 p.m. However, despite such efforts and the petitioner’s readiness with all documents and Demand Draft, respondent No. 3 refused to accommodate her. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the refusal and rigid approach adopted by respondent No. 3, the petitioner lost the opportunity of admission and could not participate in 8 the upgradation process. The petitioner had prioritized institutions such as Datta Meghe Medical College, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College (DMIHER), and GITAM Institute of Medical Science & Research for upgradation. The denial of admission also adversely affected her prospects under the State quota counselling, the results of which were scheduled for 26.10.2025. It is stated that the petitioner also participated in the Chhattisgarh State counselling process conducted by respondents No. 4 and 5 by depositing the requisite security amount. The schedule provided for completion of admission between 28.10.2025 and 31.10.2025. Hence, this petition is filed on the aforesaid facts and circumstances seeking appropriate reliefs from this Hon’ble Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that from the petitioner’s own pleadings in the application for ad-interim relief, it is evident that she has been selected under the NRI quota for admission. It is further submitted that with respect to participation in the stray round, the petitioner must first exercise her option and decide under which quota she seeks admission, as she cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands simultaneously. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits at the Bar that the petitioner undertakes to pursue admission under the NRI quota. With regard to the refund of the security money deposited by the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner may approach the competent authority for the same. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to move an appropriate 9 application before the authority concerned for refund of the security deposit, which shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of such application, in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan