HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2026 Dr. Rohit Tanwar S/o Sh. Sanjeev Tanwar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Kiranki Kherli, Karnki, Tehsil - Sohna, District Gurugram (Haryana) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education - Government Of Rajasthan At Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Office Of The Chairman Through The Chairman, NEET-PG Medical And Dental Admission/counselling Board-2025, Situated At Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanvisha Pant with Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 13/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Provisional State Merit list for round – 3 of Rajasthan NEET-PG (MD/MS) counselling for academic year 2026-27, and consequential allotment of seat in the MD/MS course under the state quota in the State of Rajasthan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the issuance of revised cut-off scores of NEET-PG by National Board of Examination on 13.01.2026, vide which, the qualifying percentile (2 of 5) [CW-2360/2026] of the candidates was lowered, the petitioner having become eligible, submitted his application for the MD/MS course and even deposited the counselling fee, in support of which, an e-mail dated 27.01.2026 has been attached. However, as the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the Provisional State Merit list dated 31.01.2026 for the allotment of the seats for academic year 2026- 27, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, submits that the petitioner was duly qualified in terms of the revised cut-off scores for NEET-PG, issued on 13.01.2026, and accordingly, he submitted his application for the MD/MS course along with the counselling fee. 4. Learned counsel submits that despite filling up the form in entirety, the petitioner’s name was not shown in the state merit list dated 31.01.2026, which reflects the arbitrary and discriminatory act of the respondents and there is no occassion whatsoever, for the respondents to deprive the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further relies upon the revised schedule for the allotment process issued by the respondents on 11.02.2026, wherein, it has been the mentioned that the candidates who could not complete either part I or part II of their registration form earlier, may complete it now. 6. Learned counsel taking support of the said revised schedule, submits that once, the revised schedule dated 11.02.2026 permits the candidates to fill their registration form, there was no occasion for them, to not to permit the petitioner to fill his registration form. (3 of 5) [CW-2360/2026] 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11920/2025 titled as Ms Yashita Mahajan (Minor) versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. dated 05.08.2025 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11261/2025 titled as Praveen Kumar versus Chairman NEET-PG Admission dated 23.07.2025, to buttress his submissions as in these cases as well, this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has directed the respondents to accept application of the petitioner through offline/manually along with the requisite fee and other formalities. 8. Thus, it is submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to fill the registration form. 9. Per contra, Ms. Tanvisha Pant and Mr. Yash Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently and fervently submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to refill the registration form, as once the time period for filling the form has already gone by, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of his own fault. 10. Learned counsel submits that even the pleadings fail to demonstrate, much less establish, that part II of the form was ever filled and submitted by the petitioner, in absence of which, the respondents cannot be blamed for non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Provisional State Merit list dated 31.01.2026. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will render no assistance to him as the facts therein are distinguishable and in (4 of 5) [CW-2360/2026] the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any technical glitch on account of which the petitioner failed to submit his form. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the petitioner could not have relied upon the order passed in the case of Praveen Kumar (supra) as the said order specifically records that it should not be treated as a precedent. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. The sum and substance of the entire controversy is whether a candidate, petitioner herein, who fulfills the eligibility criteria and meets the merits, can be deprived from being included in the Provisional state merit list for allotment of state medical PG for the academic year session 2026-27. 15. It is not in dispute that as per the revised cut-off scores of the NEET-PG, the petitioner has secured the qualifying percentile and he possess all the educational qualifications as required by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the respondents have revised the schedule for allotment process, as recently as on 11.02.2026, and the said revised schedule for allotment also grants an opportunity to candidates to complete either part I or part II of his/her registration form, if he/she could not do the same earlier. 16. Further considering the revised schedule, it is also not in dispute that no allotments have been made by the respondents till date and thus, no third-party rights have been created. 17. Perusal of the order passed by this court in the case of Ms Yashita Mahajan (supra) also confirms that if the substantial condition of the merit is complied with by a candidate, then one has to be very liberal, if there is at all, a procedural breach beyond (5 of 5) [CW-2360/2026] the control of the petitioner more so, when the third-party rights are not created. 18. Considering the facts that vide e-mail dated 27.01.2026, registration of the petitioner was confirmed by the respondents and as no allotments have been made by the respondents, no third-party rights have been created till date and taking guidance from the order passed by this Court in Ms Yashita Mahajan (supra), the present writ petition is allowed and accordingly, the respondents are directed to accept the registration form of the petitioner, both part I and part II in offline mode/manually, along with the requisite fee and other formalities, if filed by the petitioner within twenty four hours from the date of passing of this order and consequently, the petitioner be considered for allotment of seat for admission in MD/MS course under state quota in the State of Rajasthan, strictly in accordance with his merit. 19. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. 20. However, it is made clear that the present order has been passed considering the peculiar and special circumstances prevailing in the present matter. 21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /95 S