1 CGHC010355132026 2026:CGHC:40687-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4696 of 2026 1 - Dinesh Patel S/o Lakhanlal Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Tusma, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Bhupendra Kumar Singh S/o Mahendra Prasad Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Chainpur, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Arya Verma S/o Shravan Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Salvekala, Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Prabhat Ghadhewal S/o Ramkumar Ghadhewal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Parsada, Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Bhumika Baghel D/o Mohan Baghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Limtara, Police Station- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Harshit Pawar S/o Harish Pawar Aged About 20 Years R/o Karmchari Colony, Bhanu Pratappur, Police Station- Bhanu Pratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) 7 - Konark Sanday S/o K.C. Sanday Aged About 20 Years R/o Ring Road No. 2, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Seema Bhagat D/o Kapildev Bhagat Aged About 22 Years R/o G-4, Kada Colony, New Pension Bada, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Bhupendra Chandravanshi S/o Nandkumar Chandravanshi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Mathanikala, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 10 - Lubhanshu Thakur S/o Chandra Prakash Thakur Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bazar Chowk, Dahi, Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Medical Education Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chairman/competent Authority Neet-Ug 2026 State Counselling Committee, Chhattisgarh, Directorate Of Medical Education, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Counselling/admission Authority For Neet-Ug 2026, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Competent Authority, Directorate Of Medical Education, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Director General National Testing Agency, New Delhi. ... Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate /State General For Respondent No.5/NTA : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge Order on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice 17.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey along with Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard 3 Mr.Anand Dadariya, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 / NTA. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition prays for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities to ensure an mechanism effective, uniform and for verification of transparent domicile/residence eligibility of candidates seeking the benefit of Chhattisgarh State Quota in NEET-UG 2026 counselling, in accordance with the applicable rules and law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to undertake appropriate cross-verification of domicile/residence documents and other relevant records, wherever a genuine prima facie discrepancy or conflicting domicile/residence claim is brought to their notice, before granting or finally confirming the benefit of Chhattisgarh State Quota. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to consider and verify, wherever necessary and legally permissible, the relevant records including NEET-UG application particulars, identity documents, birth and educational records, parents' relevant records, Residence/Domicile Certificates, declarations/undertakings submitted during counselling and other relevant government records for determining State Quota eligibility. 4 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to prepare and publish an appropriate State Quota Eligibility List for NEET-UG 2026 counselling before final allotment of State Quota seats, containing only such particulars as are legally permissible, such as counselling/application identification number, merit/category status and State Quota eligibility status, without disclosure of unnecessary sensitive personal information. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to establish a reasonable and time-bound mechanism whereby candidates or persons having a legitimate interest in the counselling process may bring genuine and material documentary discrepancies relating to State Quota eligibility to the notice of the competent authority, subject to appropriate safeguards against frivolous complaints and harassment; 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct that where a genuine prima facie discrepancy relating to State Quota eligibility is brought to the notice of the competent authority, the same be duly examined on the basis of official records and, where warranted, a reasoned decision be taken before finalisation of the concerned State Quota allotment. 10.7 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure that the prescribed domicile/residence eligibility criteria are applied uniformly and without discrimination to all similarly situated candidates, in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5 10.8 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. It is alleged by the Petitioners that candidates obtaining fraudulent Domicile Certificates from the State of Chhattisgarh, who do not belong to the State, are trying to take admission under the domicile quota in different Government and Private Medical Colleges. It is also alleged that a list of eligible candidates under domicile category was published in the year 2025 by the State Government, but this year there is a departure for which, the candidates by obtaining fraudulent Domicile Certificates from the State of Chhattisgarh are making them eligible to be considered to take admission. Some statistical figures have been given in the writ petition to buttress the argument made by learned counsel for the Petitioners. They allege lack of transparency in the admission process under Domicile Category. 4. Mr. Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4 vehemently objects to the said submission. It is submitted that last year, a list of candidates, who have passed 12th standard from the State of Chhattisgarh, was published, but dispute arose with regard to the said list, as students, who pursued higher courses out of the State of Chhattisgarh, raised dispute for not incorporating their names in the said list. Thus, in the year 2026, no list has been published in 6 that respect. He further submits that entire process of entrance and admission to the Medical Colleges in different Undergraduate Courses are being undertaken in terms of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental, and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2018. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for eligibility criteria for Government quota seats in Government Medical Colleges, Government Dental Colleges and Government quota seats in Private Dental Colleges. List of eligible candidates is published under Rule 6 of the said Rules by the National Testing Agency (NTA), who was responsible for conducting the NEET entrance examination for the year 2026 and publishing list of eligible candidates. Thus, the State of Chhattisgarh is no way responsible to publish the list of eligible candidates, more particularly, the eligible candidates under the domicile category. 5. It is his submission that the writ petition has been filed on mere apprehension and no allegation with regard to violation of any Rules or Regulations have been alleged in the writ petition. Materials in support of the allegations of the Petitioners have also not been filed. Thus, the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 6. Mr. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 / NTA supports the submissions of learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. 7 7. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as documents appended thereto, it transpires that no material has been produced in support of the allegations made in the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed on mere apprehension. No specific instances have been given by the Petitioners in the writ petition in respect of any deviation in the admission process. Thus, it is very difficult to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Chandra