News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 71 | 2026:CGHC:4338-DB
Bilaspur, January 27, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the first and second rounds of postgraduate medical counselling for the 2025 academic year, holding that no candidate has an indefeasible right to retain a PG medical seat once admission rules are lawfully amended.
The petition was filed by Anushka Yadav, a resident of Durg district, who had secured admission to an MD Radiodiagnosis seat through the Chhattisgarh State NEET PG counselling process. After completing all admission formalities, depositing fees, submitting documents, and joining the course, her admission was annulled when the state government cancelled the earlier counselling rounds and ordered a fresh process following amendments to Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ruled that the state acted within its constitutional and statutory authority in cancelling the counselling rounds to bring the admission process in line with settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
The court noted that the amendments were necessitated after judicial clarification on the illegality of residence-based reservation in postgraduate medical admissions, as reaffirmed in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dr Tanvi Behl case. While institutional preference is permissible to a limited extent, domicile-based reservation in PG medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution, the court observed.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that her admission had crystallised into a vested right, the bench held that provisional allotment or even completion of admission formalities does not create an indefeasible entitlement when the admission process itself is subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. The court emphasised that public interest and constitutional compliance override individual inconvenience or financial loss.
The judges further ruled that the cancellation of counselling did not amount to retrospective application of the amended rules but was a corrective administrative step to ensure lawful and merit-based admissions. They also observed that allowing such admissions to continue would perpetuate illegality and lead to unequal treatment among similarly placed candidates.
Dismissing the petition, the court clarified that its decision would apply “in rem” to all similarly situated candidates, effectively barring future litigation on identical grounds and bringing finality to the controversy surrounding PG medical admissions in the state for the 2025 session.
Case Reference : WPC No. 367 of 2026, Anushka Yadav D/o Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Durg vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others; Counsels: for the petitioner, Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate, and for the respondents/State, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
