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 session, holding that candidates do not acquire an indefeasible or vested right over a PG medical seat when the admission process is lawfully corrected to align with constitutional principles.
The petition was filed by Anushka Yadav, a resident of Durg district, who had been allotted an MD Radiodiagnosis seat through the Chhattisgarh State NEET PG counselling process. She had completed all admission formalities, including payment of fees, submission of documents, and joining the course. Her admission was later annulled after the state government cancelled the initial counselling rounds and directed a fresh counselling 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 held that the state government acted within its constitutional and statutory powers in cancelling the counselling rounds. The court observed that the decision was taken to bring the admission process in conformity with settled law laid down by the Supreme Court on postgraduate medical admissions.
The Bench noted that the amendments were necessitated following judicial clarification on the impermissibility of residence or domicile-based reservation in PG medical courses. While a limited institutional preference may be permissible, domicile-based reservation in postgraduate medical admissions violates Article 14 of the Constitution, the court observed, referring to the legal position reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Dr Tanvi Behl case.
Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that her admission had crystallised into a vested right, the court held that even completion of admission formalities does not create an indefeasible entitlement when the underlying admission process itself is found to be legally flawed. The Bench emphasised that admissions made subject to rules and judicial scrutiny cannot be protected merely on grounds of individual hardship, inconvenience, or financial loss.
The court further clarified that the cancellation of the counselling rounds did not amount to retrospective application of the amended rules. Instead, it was a corrective administrative measure intended to ensure a lawful, merit-based, and constitutionally compliant admission process. Allowing admissions made under an illegal framework to continue, the court noted, would perpetuate illegality and result in unequal treatment of similarly placed candidates.
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that its decision would operate in rem and apply to all similarly situated candidates. The ruling effectively brings finality to the controversy surrounding postgraduate medical admissions in Chhattisgarh for the 2025 academic year and bars future litigation on identical grounds.
Case Details:
WPC No. 367 of 2026, Anushka Yadav D/o Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Durg vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate
Counsel for the State/Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General