1 CGHC010327102026 2026:CGHC:37506-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4352 of 2026 1 - Asha Jha (Minor) D/o Shri Shambhu Nath Jha, Aged About 17 Years Through Her Father And Natural Guardian, Shri Shambhu Nath Jha S/o Devendra Jha R/o Forest Colony, Awarbhata, Tahsil And District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Directorate of Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). North Block, Sector No. 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, Swastha Bhawan, Second Floor, North Block, Sector No.19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase- I, New Delhi - 110077 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.25 22:27:36 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 21. 08.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “10.1 Quashing/setting aside Clause 3 of the Online Application Notice dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it restricts entitlement to select/avail the EWS category at the Chhattisgarh State-level NEET-UG 2026 counselling solely to candidates who had declared EWS at the NEET-UG examination stage, and bars any application for correction of category to EWS at the counselling stage, the same being ultra vires Rule 7(i) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; 10.2 issue a writ/order/direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to select/correct her category from General to EWS in the ongoing Chhattisgarh State NEET-UG 2026 3 counselling process, and to consider her candidature for allotment against EWS category seats on the basis of the valid EWS Income and Asset Certificate dated 03.08.2026, subject to verification of the said certificate by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 7(xx) of the Rules of 2025; 10.3 issue a writ/order/direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents to forthwith consider and decide, by a reasoned and speaking order, the petitioner's representation dated 15.08.2026; 10.4 pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts as mentioned in the petition, in brief, are that petitioner, a 17-year-old minor represented through her father and natural guardian, appeared in NEET-UG 2026 and secured 444 marks out of 720, with an overall percentile of 91.0329292 and an All- India Rank of 178177. She belongs to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and possesses a valid EWS Income and Asset Certificate dated 03.08.2026 for the financial year 2026-27. The petitioner sought to participate in the Chhattisgarh State counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic session 2026-27. At the NEET-UG examination stage, however, 4 she had inadvertently declared herself as a General Category candidate. Thereafter, the State NEET Counselling Committee issued the Notice dated 07.08.2026 prescribing the counselling schedule and, by Clause 3 thereof, provided that EWS eligibility in State counselling would be determined solely on the basis of the category declared in the NEET-UG 2026 result, expressly prohibiting candidates who had declared a category other than EWS from changing their category to EWS during State counselling. Consequently, when the petitioner attempted to complete the State counselling application, the online portal did not provide any option to correct her category from General to EWS. The petitioner contends that the restriction imposed by Clause 3 of the Notice is contrary to Rule 7(i) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025, which contemplates a separate online application for State counselling and specifically requires candidates to inspect their relevant certificates before selecting their category, with the information entered at the counselling stage thereafter becoming immutable. According to the petitioner, the Rules do not provide that the category declared at the earlier NEET-UG examination stage must conclusively govern the subsequent State counselling process, and the impugned Clause 3 therefore adds a condition beyond the statutory Rules and is ultra vires to that extent. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.08.2026 seeking permission to correct her category to EWS, but the respondents 5 neither enabled the correction nor passed any reasoned order on her representation. Relying also upon an earlier proceeding concerning category correction during State counselling and asserting that similarly situated candidates had previously been permitted such correction, the petitioner alleges that denial of a similar opportunity to her is arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. She accordingly seeks permission to furnish and claim her EWS category at the State counselling stage on the basis of her valid certificate, without any alteration to her NEET-UG marks, merit, rank or examination record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 3 of the impugned Notice dated 07.08.2026, insofar as it makes the petitioner's entitlement to select the EWS category at the State- level counselling conditional upon prior declaration of the EWS category at the NEET-UG examination stage before the NTA, and further bars correction of category at the counselling-application stage, is ultra vires Rule 7(i) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025. It is contended that Rule 7(i) does not prescribe any such condition and, on the contrary, contemplates selection of the category by the candidate at the State counselling stage upon furnishing the relevant certificate. Learned counsel submits that an executive notice or instruction issued for implementation of statutory Rules cannot travel beyond, curtail, or add to the requirements prescribed by the parent Rules. By importing the anterior NEET- 6 UG declaration as the basis for treating the category as “immutable”, Clause 3 impermissibly enlarges the scope of Rule 7(i). In the alternative, it is argued that even if Rule 7(i) is construed as permitting such a restriction, an absolute and non- derogable prohibition against correction of an inadvertent category entry, particularly where the candidate possesses a valid EWS certificate issued by the competent authority and seeks correction during the subsistence of the counselling process, would be arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate, and the expression “immutable” is therefore liable to be read down. The petitioner further submits that denial of an opportunity to claim EWS status, despite possession of a valid certificate, while similarly situated candidates have been permitted category correction in earlier counselling processes, including as stated in W.P.(C.) No. 4569 of 2025, Shubhangi Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, constitutes hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned action defeats, rather than advances, the object of the Rules of 2025, namely, fair, transparent and merit-based allocation of seats, since permitting the petitioner to furnish her correct, certificate-backed category at the counselling stage would neither alter her NEET-UG merit nor confer any unfair advantage upon her. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents failed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.08.2026, notwithstanding that 7 it was submitted during the subsistence of the counselling process and raised a substantive grievance requiring a reasoned determination, thereby rendering the respondents' inaction arbitrary and unsustainable. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation, founded upon the past practice of permitting category correction during counselling and upon Rule 7(i) itself, that she would be afforded a similar opportunity; the sudden and unexplained foreclosure of that opportunity by Clause 3, without any corresponding amendment to Rule 7(i), defeats such legitimate expectation in the absence of any overriding public interest. It is therefore contended that the impugned Clause 3 and the consequential denial of consideration of the petitioner under the EWS category unlawfully affects her right to be considered for admission to medical education, attracting the protection of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Lastly, the respondents' prescription and implementation of a more restrictive procedure specifically for EWS candidates, while permitting candidates belonging to other reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC to correct or change their category during counselling, is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.5, opposing the petition, submit that the petitioner, having consciously declared herself as a General Category candidate at the NEET-UG 2026 examination stage, cannot subsequently seek alteration of her category to EWS during the State counselling 8 process, particularly when the impugned Notice dated 07.08.2026, by its Clause 3, expressly provides that EWS eligibility in State counselling shall be determined on the basis of the category declared in the NEET-UG result and specifically prohibits any change of category from General to EWS at the counselling stage. It is contended that the petitioner was required to furnish correct particulars at the initial examination stage and cannot claim a right to rectify a category declaration after the result has been declared, as permitting such changes at a later stage would undermine the uniformity, certainty and transparency of the admission process and create an opportunity for candidates to alter their category after knowing their NEET-UG marks, percentile and rank. The respondents submit that Rule 7(i) of the Rules of 2025, which provides that the information furnished in the State counselling application becomes immutable, cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted right upon a candidate to alter a category already declared before the NTA, and Clause 3 merely regulates the manner in which the statutory counselling process is to be implemented. The petitioner's possession of an EWS certificate dated 03.08.2026 does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to claim EWS status contrary to the prescribed counselling procedure, particularly when the petitioner admittedly declared herself as General at the NEET-UG stage. It is further submitted that the principle of legitimate expectation cannot override an express and uniformly applicable condition governing 9 the counselling process, nor can an alleged past practice confer a vested right upon the petitioner to seek correction of her category. The respondents also dispute any allegation of hostile discrimination and submit that candidates belonging to different categories may be governed by the requirements applicable to their respective categories and circumstances. It is accordingly contended that Clause 3 neither violates Rule 7(i) nor Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution, but serves the legitimate objectives of maintaining certainty, fairness, transparency and administrative discipline in a time-bound admission process, and that no interference by this Hon'ble Court is warranted. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The contention of the petitioner is mainly based on Rule 7(i) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 (in short ‘the Rules, 2025) and clause 3 of the Notice dated 07.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3. Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 2025 reads as under:- “7. Counselling Process :- xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (i) After the merit list is declared as mentioned above, online applications will be invited for the seats in Chhattisgarh State. The eligibility or any other information entered at the time of online application such as domicile, category, class will be immutable. Therefore, especially 10 before selecting your category, class, make sure to inspect the certificate of the desired time period in the desired format. Candidates will have the option to change the institute selection in each round of counselling. The Directorate will conduct online counselling in four rounds namely the first, second, mop-up round and stray vacancy round, the time-table of which will be published (announced) on the Directorate’s website from time to time. In case seats remain vacant after the fourth round, the number of rounds of online counselling can be increased before the last date of admission.” Clause 3 of the Notice dated 07.08.2026 reads as under:- “3-@ EWS Js.kh dh ik=rk dk fu/kkZj.k & jk"Vªh; ijh{kk ,tsalh ¼National Testing Agency½ }kjk ?kksf"kr NEET UG 2026 ds ifj.kke esa miyC/k vH;FkhZ dh Js.kh laca/kh tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij gh jkT; Lrjh; dkmlafyax esa EWS Js.kh dh ik=rk dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk,xkA ftUk vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk NEET UG 2026 dh ijh{kk esa EWS Js.kh dk p;u fd;k x;k gS] dsoy mUgh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;ekuqlkj jkT; Lrjh; dkmlafyax esa EWS Js.kh dk ykHk iznku fd;k tk,xkA ftUk vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk NEET UG 2026 dh ijh{kk esa EWS Js.kh ds vfrfjDr vU; Js.kh dk p;u fd;k x;k gS] mUgsa jkT; Lrjh; dkmaflfyax ds nkSjku EWS Js.kh esa ifjorZu dh vuqefr ugha nh tk,xhA vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Js.kh laca/kh tkudkjh NTA ls izkIr MsVk ds vuqlkj gh dkmaflfyax iksVZy esa iznf'kZr dh tk,xhA bl laca/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vkosnu Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk,xkA” 8. Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 2025 along with Clause 3 of the Notice dated 11 07.08.2026, we are of the view that there is no inconsistency or disconformity between Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 2025 and Clause 3 of the Notice dated 07.08.2026. Rule 7(i) makes the category and other particulars furnished by a candidate in the State counselling application immutable and, significantly, casts an express obligation upon the candidate to inspect the relevant certificate before selecting the category. The provision, therefore, cannot be construed as conferring an unfettered right upon a candidate to alter or substitute the category subsequently, but rather requires the candidate to furnish the correct category at the prescribed stage and thereafter maintains finality of the information so furnished. Clause 3, by providing that EWS eligibility in State-level counselling shall be determined on the basis of the category declared by the candidate in the NEET-UG 2026 result and that a candidate who had selected a category other than EWS at the NEET-UG stage shall not be permitted to change the same to EWS during counselling, is consistent with the aforesaid requirement of finality and operates to ensure certainty and uniformity in the counselling process. The expression “immutable” occurring in Rule 7(i) cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean that a candidate who had already declared herself as a General Category candidate before the NTA may, after declaration of the NEET-UG result and with knowledge of her marks, percentile and rank, seek substitution of that category during State counselling. The petitioner's valid EWS certificate may establish her eligibility 12 in substance, but such certificate by itself does not confer a right to disregard the prescribed procedure or to seek a change of category at a stage when the same has been expressly prohibited. Thus, Clause 3 does not add or derogate from Rule 7(i), but merely gives effect to the requirement of maintaining certainty and finality of category particulars in the counselling process; consequently, the challenge to Clause 3 on the ground that it is ultra vires Rule 7(i) is without merit. 9. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in the petition. Clause 3 of the Notice dated 07.08.2026 is consistent with Rule 7(i) of the Rules, 2025 and merely gives effect to the requirement of finality of the category declared for counselling. The petitioner, having declared herself as General Category in NEET-UG 2026, cannot claim a right to subsequently change her category to EWS during State counselling merely on the basis of her EWS certificate dated 03.08.2026. The certificate may establish substantive eligibility, but cannot override the prescribed counselling procedure. The pleas of discrimination, legitimate expectation and violation of Articles 14 and 21 are, therefore, without merit. No direction for correction of category or consideration against EWS seats can consequently be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil