UKHC010190352025 2026:UHC:5857-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 1013 OF 2025 15TH JULY, 2026 Sanket Manoj Patil …… Petitioner Versus Union of India & others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India : Mr. Ankit Rana, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1) The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (for short 1 UKHC010190352025 2026:UHC:5857-DB hereinafter referred to as ‘NCISM’), whereby it intimated the respondent-college that it had taken admission of the petitioner in BAMS course for the batch 2023-24 directly and not on basis of any recommendation made through the counseling process, which was mandatory as per Clause (i) of Sub Regulation (7) of Regulation (5) of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Education), Regulations 2022. The said Regulation is as follows : “All seats irrespective of category (Central quota, State quota or Management etc.) except foreign nationals are to be admitted through counseling (Central or State or Union Territory) only. Direct admission by any means other than above specified shall not be approved.” 2) The communication directs the college to immediately cancel the admission of the petitioner and discharge him from the college to avoid any further loss to the student. 3) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken admission in the respondent-college directly and not on basis of recommendation made through the counseling process. 2 UKHC010190352025 2026:UHC:5857-DB As such there cannot be two opinions on the stand taken by the NCISM that petitioner’s admission was contrary to the Regulations and therefore, invalid. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the college was at fault in giving admission to the petitioner directly. 5) However, we decline to examine the issue, as the petitioner has not sought any relief by way of damages against the college. 6) The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 7) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 15TH JULY, 2026 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d 13aaf116e73351fdaf6878326386908a 7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A8099 0FC51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88 DDF7C18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.16 14:13:11 +05'30'