No Admissions Beyond August 31: Madras HC Sets Aside NEET-SS Extra Counselling Order

The Madras High Court division bench overturns single judge’s direction for additional NEET Super-Specialty 2024-25 mop-up round

Update: 2026-02-21 05:47 GMT

Madras High Court held that NEET-SS admissions cannot be extended beyond the August 31 statutory deadline, even if seats remain vacant.

The Madras High Court has set aside an order directing authorities to conduct an additional mop-up round of counselling for NEET Super-Specialty 2024-25 seats, holding that admissions cannot be permitted beyond the statutory deadline of August 31, 2025.

A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan allowed a writ appeal filed by the Union Government authorities and the National Medical Commission, challenging the September 18, 2025 order of a single judge.

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by three doctors who had appeared for NEET-SS 2024. They were eligible to participate in the super-specialty counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee under the supervision of the Directorate General of Health Services.

The petitioners argued that although they were offered seats in earlier rounds, their preferred seats had been allotted to other candidates who subsequently resigned. As a result, several super-specialty seats remained vacant.

They contended that these unfilled seats ought to have been filled through an additional mop-up round of counselling. In Tamil Nadu, 50 per cent of super-specialty seats were to be filled by the state counselling agency for in-service candidates.

A press release dated July 28, 2025 indicated that vacancies continued even after multiple rounds, and the state had requested the Union Ministry of Health to permit an extended stray round to fill 24 vacancies in super-specialty courses.

However, no such counselling was conducted either at the state level or by including the vacant seats in the All India quota. The petitioners claimed that this inaction led to avoidable lapse of valuable medical seats, depriving meritorious candidates of admission opportunities.

The single judge accepted their contention, holding that denial of an additional mop-up round resulted in arbitrary and unjustified non-utilisation of medical education resources. Court observed that such non-utilisation defeated the objective of equitable access to medical education and directed authorities to conduct an additional mop-up round and complete admissions within four weeks.

Challenging this direction, the appellants argued that the Supreme Court had repeatedly mandated strict adherence to the admission schedule. They relied on the decision in Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others (2016), wherein the Apex Court approved a fixed timetable for postgraduate medical admissions and categorically held that in no circumstances shall the last date for admission or joining be extended beyond August 31.

The division bench noted that the prescribed schedule for super-specialty admissions clearly fixed August 31 as the final date up to which students could be admitted against vacancies arising for any reason.

The Supreme Court had granted its imprimatur to this schedule and directed strict compliance by all stakeholders.

Court observed that although the Supreme Court had, in certain exceptional cases such as Kevin Joy and others v. The Government of India and others (2023), permitted admissions beyond the deadline, it had expressly clarified that such orders were passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and should not be treated as precedent.

The bench held that irrespective of whether vacancies arose due to inaction or administrative lapses, once the last date of August 31 had passed, the high court could not issue directions to conduct further counselling. Any such extension, it said, would be contrary to the binding mandate of the Supreme Court.

Concluding that the single judge’s direction was unsustainable in law, the division bench set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: The Under Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others vs. Dr.Ajitha and Others

Order Date: February 3, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan

Tags:    

Similar News