Common Judgment:

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 is the 4th respondent, and the appellant in W.A.No.2745 of 2025 is a third party to W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024. Both the writ appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The parties to these writ appeals are referred in their status as they are in W.A.No.2745 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

2. The facts which led to the filing of the present writ appeals are as follows:

                  2.1. The 1st respondent herein-petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024 is an aspirant of a medical course and appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (‘NEET’ for short) UG-2024. He secured All India Rank of 881671 and category rank of 393675. Evidencing the same, he produced Ext.P1 NEET score card in the writ petition. He had registered for the online medical counselling hosted by the Medical Counselling Committee (‘MCC’, for short) by paying the required fees. Even though the MCC conducted four rounds of seat allocation and a special stray vacancy round open to all pre-registered candidates who have completed registration and payment of fees earlier and are not holding any seat, for filling the MBBS seats in the Country, the 1st respondent could not secure a seat. Alleging that some of the medical seats were still lying vacant and one such general quota seat is vacant at the 4th respondent college, which is deemed to be University, the 1st respondent approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the MCC to take immediate steps to fill the vacant seat in the MBBS course at the 4th respondent college/deemed to be University and allot the same to the 1st respondent.

                  2.2.    On 09.12.2024, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed Annexure A/Annexure R4(f) interim order as under:

                  “It is submitted that in the special stray round for filling up last of the vacancy, a student was allotted seat, but he has not turned up and has later informed that he is not interested to join.

                  2. In view of the fact that a seat of MBBS is still vacant, there will be an interim order directing the respondents to admit the petitioner to the course forthwith, if the petitioner satisfies all other parameters. Post on 15.01.2025.”

                  2.3.    Subsequently, the appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 - 5th respondent herein, who secured All India Rank of 334961 and 101254th rank in the category section, filed W.P.(C) No.44690 of 2024 seeking a direction to allot the available seat in the 4th respondent college to her.

                  2.4.    On the basis of Annexure R4 (f)/Annexure A interim order dated 09.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent college admitted the 1st respondent in the one and only stray vacancy available in the College. Meanwhile, some of the medical colleges approached the Apex Court with miscellaneous applications in W.P.(C) No. 833 of 2024 with a prayer for direction to the admission authorities to conduct a stray /special counselling round for the seats remaining vacant in several colleges, even after the five rounds of counselling. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, and further that the precious medical seats should not go in waste, when the Country is facing acute shortage of doctors, the Apex Court inclined to extend the period of counselling by way of a last chance. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the order of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.833 of 2024 in the matter of Era Lucknow Medical College and Hospital v. State of Uttar Pradesh reads thus:

                  “6. The Admission Authorities are, therefore, directed to hold a fresh stray/special counselling for the seats remaining vacant and complete the admission process prior to 30.12.2024 in any eventuality.

                  7. It is further directed that no college would be permitted to admit the students directly and admission should be conducted only through the State Admission Authorities.

                  8. We, however, clarify that the stray/special admission process should not disturb the admission which are already finalized and the admissions would be made only from the waitlisted candidates.

                  9. Needless to state that the NRI seat which is vacant would also be converted into the General Category Quota, however, to be filled through the State Admission Authorities.”

                  2.5. After the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, the appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 - 5th respondent was allotted the seat in the 4th respondent College by the MCC, though the seat was already filled up provisionally by admitting the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, relying on the interim order of the learned Single Judge. When W.P.(C)No.44690 of 2024 came up for consideration, in view of the admission secured by his client in the 4th respondent College, the counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 - 5th respondent filed a memo dated 09.01.2025 not pressing W.P.(C)No.44690 of 2024. Subsequently, the appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 - 5th respondent filed I.A.No. No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, producing therewith Annexures R4 (a) to R4 (g) documents seeking to implead her as an additional respondent in that writ petition.

                  2.6. The 4th respondent College filed a counter affidavit dated 01.02.2025 in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R3 (a) and R3 (b) documents. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2025, the College produced Exts.R3 (c) and R3(d) documents. The appellant in W.A.No.1630 of 2025 - 5th respondent, who was impleaded as additional 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, filed a counter affidavit dated 17.02.2025 in that writ petition.

                  2.7.    After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, holding that the admission granted to the 1st respondent pursuant to the interim order dated 09.12.2024

passed by the learned Single Judge should be treated as regular and the 1st respondent shall be permitted to pursue the course. W.P.(C)No.44690 of 2024 was dismissed as not pressed.

                  2.8.    Being aggrieved, the 5th respondent herein - additional 4th respondent in the writ petition filed W.A.No.1630 of 2025. The National Medical Commission, which was not a party to W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, filed W.A.No.2745 of 2025 along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. By the order dated 14.11.2025, this Court allowed the said application. There was a delay of 145 days in filing W.A. No.2745 of 2025. By the order dated 12.12.2025 in C.M. Application No.1 of 2025, this Court condoned the said delay and admitted the appeal.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent - writ petitioner, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent College and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a necessary party to the writ petition. However, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition without making the appellant a party therein. As per Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act 2019, the NEET examination was conducted by the appellant. The responsibility to specify the regulations that govern the conduct of the common counselling by the designated authority for admission to undergraduate and post- graduate super-speciality seats in all medical institutions, which are governed by the provisions of the Act, is on the appellant. As per Annexure C notification dated 02.06.2023, namely, Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2023, the Government of India will decide and notify the agency and method of counselling for undergraduate seats. There is a prohibition for students seeking admission other than through counselling. Therefore, the authority to grant admission to medical seats is now the MCC, and the College cannot admit a student directly. By pointing out Annexure D circular dated 22.10.2024 issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board of the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that the Designated Authority for counselling for the 15% of All India quota seats of contributing states and all MBBS seats of Medical Educational Institutions of the Central Government, Universities established by an Act of Parliament and the deemed universities shall be the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The learned Standing Counsel points out that even in the interim order of the learned Single Judge, the direction was to admit the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, if he satisfied all other parameters. But the 4th respondent College admitted the 1st respondent by violating the said parameters and without authority. In support of his arguments, the learned standing counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Anurag Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2016) 9 SCC 426], Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Dr.Priyambada Sharma [2022 SCC Online SC 1442], Priyambada Sharma (Dr.) v. Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India [2025 SCC Online SC 205] and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.(C)No.44681 of 2025.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent -writ petitioner argued that in the order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2024, the Apex Court held that the stray/special admission process permitted by that order should not disturb the admissions which are already finalised. The 1st respondent was admitted by the College to the one and only available seat in pursuance to the interim order of the learned Single Judge, prior to the aforementioned order of the Apex Court and hence the admission granted to him may not be distributed.

6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for MCC would submit that the authority to conduct counselling and make allotments of seats in various Medical Colleges in the All India quota is with the MCC, and it is without the permission of MCC that the 4th respondent College admitted the 1st respondent. However, the said admission is only a provisional one. Since the admission portal was closed on 30.11.2024, the MCC was not aware of the admission to the seat granted to the 1st respondent by the College and hence it admitted the 5th respondent in pursuance to the special stray allotment permitted by the Apex Court.

7. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would argue that the Apex Court had disposed of the writ petition filed by various stakeholders by fixing a cut-off date. However, in view of the lying of large numbers of vacant seats in various colleges, a special stray allotment was permitted by the order dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.833 of 2024. But the direction was to effect the admissions only through the admission authorities concerned. The 5th respondent was the entitled student and she rightly admitted to the seat available in the 4th respondent college. In fact, even at the time of granting admission to the 1st respondent, if the portal was open and the admission process was done by the MCC, the 5th respondent would have been admitted to the available seat.

8. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent College submitted that it is in pursuance of the interim order of the learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent admitted the 1st respondent to the available vacancy. Before admitting the 1st respondent, the College sent e-mails dated 11.12.2024 and 30.12.2024 to the MCC seeking its advice. However, the MCC has not replied to those e-mails, and hence the College, by following the direction in the interim order, admitted the 1st respondent to the available seat. Apart from that, the college obtained an affidavit from the 1st respondent as well as from the 5th respondent that the admission is only provisional and would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

9. While appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer some of the statutory provisions governing the field. Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act reads thus:

                  “Section 14

                  National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.--

                  (1) There shall be a uniform National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test for admission to the undergraduate and postgraduate super-speciality medical education in all medical institutions which are governed by the provisions of this Act:

                  Provided that the uniform National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to the undergraduate medical education shall also be applicable to all medical institutions governed under any other law for the time being in force.

                  (2) The Commission shall conduct the National Eligibility- cum-Entrance Test in English and in such other languages, through such designated authority and in such manner, as may be specified by regulations.

                  (3) The Commission shall specify by regulations the manner of conducting common counselling by the designated authority for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate super-speciality seats in all the medical institutions which are governed by the provisions of this Act:

                  Provided that the designated authority of the Central Government shall conduct the common counselling for all India seats and the designated authority of the State Government shall conduct the common counselling for the seats at the State level”.

10. Regulations 12 to 16 of Chapter III – Admission, Counselling, Migration etc., in Annexure C Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, issued by the appellant by exercising the powers conferred under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, read thus:

                  “12. Common counselling – Without prejudice to anything stated in the present Regulations or other NMC Regulations, there shall be common counselling for admission to graduate courses in medicine for all Medical Institutions in India based on the merit list of the NEET-UG.

                  13. Counselling shall entirely be based on the seat matrix provided by National Medical Commission; Provided the common counseling may have multiple rounds as may be necessary.

                  14. Conduct of common counselling – the UGMEB shall publish guidelines for the conduct of common counselling, and the designated authority under section 17 below shall conduct the common counselling in conformity with such published guidelines.

                  15. Government to appoint a designated authority for common counselling – The Government of India will decide and notify the agency and method of counseling of all undergraduate seats.

                  16. The prohibition for any student seeking admission any other way than counselling – No medical institute shall admit any candidate to the Graduate Medical Education course in contravention of these regulations;

                  Provided the Medical Institution granting admission to any student in contravention of these Regulations, shall be liable to be fined Rupees one crore or fee for the entire course duration, whichever is higher, per seat for the first time and for the second time of non-compliance, Rupees two crore or double the amount of fees for the entire course duration whichever is higher per seat, and for any subsequent non- compliance or continued contravention the Medical Institution shall be barred from granting admissions to any student from the next academic year;

                  Provided further that such Student admitted in contravention of this mandate shall be discharged from the Medical College and double the number of seats shall be reduced for one or more years”.        (underline supplied)

11. Similarly, paragraph 2(5A) of Annexure D circular dated 22.10.2024 issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board of the appellant reads thus:

                  “5A Common Counseling.

                  (1) There shall be a common counseling for admission to MBBS course in all Medical Educational Institutions on the basis of merit list of the National Eligibility Entrance Test.

                  (2) The Designated Authority for counseling for the 15% All India Quota seats of the contributing States and all MBBS seats of Medical Educational Institutions of the Central Government, Universities established by an Act of Parliament and the Deemed Universities shall be the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

                  (3) The counseling for admission to MBBS course in a State/Union Territory, including, Medical Educational Institutions established by the State Government, University established by an Act of State/Union Territory Legislature, Trust, Society, Minority Institutions, Municipal Bodies or a Company shall be conducted by the State/Union Territory Government”.

12. Chapter I paragraph 3 of the NEET-UG (MBBS/BDS/B.Sc Nursing) Counselling 2024 Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme published by MCC stipulates that vide MCI gazette notification dated 27.06.2017, the Designated Authority for Counselling for the 15% All India quota seats of the contributing States and all MBBS seats of Medical Educational Institutions of the Central Government, Universities established by an Act of Parliament and Deemed Universities shall be the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. How the counselling must be conducted in the Deemed University is provided under Chapter III of the said Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme.

13. In Anurag Kumar Singh [(2016) 9 SCC 426], the Apex Court, while considering the appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand by which a direction was issued to restrict the selection of Assistant Prosecuting Officer only to the number of posts that were advertised, held thus;

                  “12. We have examined the possibility of granting relief to the Appellants by taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case. The Appellants participated in the selection which was initially for 38 posts which later increased to 74 posts. They could not be appointed due to the judgment of the High Court which directed the selection to be only for 38 posts. In view of there being no fault on the part of the Appellants, we examined whether we could exercise our judicial discretion to direct their appointments. We realise that any such direction given by us for their appointments would be contrary to the Rules. Judicial discretion can be exercised by a Court only when there are two or more possible lawful solutions. In any event, Courts cannot give any direction contrary to the Statute or Rules made thereunder in exercise of judicial discretion. It will be useful to reproduce from Judicial Discretion (1989) by Aharon Barak which is as follows:

                   “Discretion assumes the freedom to choose among several lawful alternatives. Therefore, discretion does not exist when there is but one lawful option. In this situation, the judge is required to select that option and has no freedom of choice. No discretion is involved in the choice between a lawful act and an unlawful act. The judge must choose the lawful act, and he is precluded from choosing the unlawful act. Discretion, on the other hand, assumes the lack of an obligation to choose one particular possibility among several.” (Underline supplied)

14. In Priyambada Sharma [(2022) SCC Online SC 1442] in a similar case as that of the present one wherein the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India filed appeals assailing the judgement of the High Court of Calcutta directing West Bengal University of Health Sciences to admit the respondents therein initially by interim orders granting provisional admission to postgraduate medical courses beyond the cut-off date in complete ignorance of their placement in the order of merit, which were later disposed of on the premise that since the respondents have undergone six months of postgraduate medical course, their provisional admission stand regularised and later directed to be treated as a regular postgraduate student held thus:

                  “20. That so far as the time schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India in its Regulations, 2000 of which reference has been made for the academic year 2019-20 for admission to the post - graduate medical courses is concerned, it has to be strictly followed and that, in any circumstance, is not to be deviated. Last date for admissions to the post - graduate medical course will not be extended after 31st May and the schedule has been prescribed in compliance of the judgments of this Court of which reference has been made in Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another(supra) followed by this Court in Priya Gupta (supra) and Ashish Ranjan and Others (supra) and this Court has consistently held that the schedule for admission to the post - graduate medical courses must be followed strictly leaving no discretion to any authority to permit admissions over the cut - off date under schedule for admission to post - graduate medical courses i.e. 31st May.

                  21. That even when the complaints are made to this Court that large number of seats are lying vacant seeking extension of time to fill those unfilled undergraduate / post - graduate seats of medical courses, this Court always declined such requests and directed that schedule must be strictly adhered to.

                  22. This Court in Education Promotion Society for India and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2019 (7) SCC 38) held as under: -

                  “6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual college or university but generally on the ground that a large number of seats for the PG courses are lying vacant. It is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed by the UoI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant. However, it is important to note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in non - clinical subjects. There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard to the remaining 400-500 seats. This Court however can take judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of nonclinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do not want to do postgraduation in non - clinical subjects. Merely because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule will be defeated.”

                  23. Further, this Court in Dr. Astha Goel and Others v. Medical Counselling Committee and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 734) held as under: -

                  “23. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when the Medical Counselling Committee and the Union of India have to adhere to the time schedule for completing the admission process and when the current admission of NEET - PG - 2021 is already behind time schedule and ever after conducting eight to nine rounds of counselling, still some seats, which are mainly nonclinical courses seats have remained vacant and thereafter when a conscious decision is taken by the Union Government / the Medical Counselling Committee, not to conduct a further Special Stray Round of counselling, it cannot be said that the same is arbitrary. The decision of the Union Government and the Medical Counselling Committee not to have Special Stray Round of counselling is in the interest of Medical Education and Public Health. There cannot be any compromise with the merits and / or quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the Public Health.

26. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and held that even after eight to nine rounds of counselling, out of 40,000 seats, 1456 seats have remained vacant, out of which approximately, more than 1100 seats are non - clinical seats, which every year remain vacant, of which the judicial notice has been taken by this Court in the case of Education Promotion Society for India (supra).”

                  24. In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered view, the interim orders passed by the High Court granting provisional admissions in the post - graduate medical courses in the months of June and July, 2019 by orders dated 04th June, 2019, 16th July, 2019 and 30th July, 2019 which were later made absolute by an order dated 04th November, 2019 are not legally sustainable.

                  25. The feeble submission made by the respondents' counsel that a sympathetic view may be taken on the premise that they have been allowed to continue in their respective post - graduate medical courses for quite some time or few of them have completed the course in the interregnum despite the order of stay granted by this Court and the reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik and Others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3280), in our view, may not be of any assistance for the reason that it was a case where the student was selected in the counselling in the first year MBBS course but was not granted admission due to his inability to pay the fee before the last date i.e. 31st August, 2018 and he was allowed to continue and pursue the course by interim order passed by this Court. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, his admission was approved under the order of this Court. As far as the cases of present respondents are concerned, they have participated in the second round of counselling but failed to get any seat in the post - graduate medical course because of lower rank in order of merit and by interim orders passed by the High Court, provisional admissions were granted to them ignoring the principle of merit which cannot be countenanced by this Court.

                  26. In our considered view, no sympathy can be shown to such students who have not only entered / admitted after 31st May of the year but their admissions were completely in contravention to the Regulations, 2000 and provisional admissions were granted by the High Court ignoring the principle of merit which is the sole touchstone for admission to the post - graduate courses based on the NEET examination, 2019 where admissions are made strictly in the order of merit - cum - preference and despite the stay order passed by this Court, if they are allowed to continue in post - graduate medical courses, the same would be completely illegal and such contemptuous action on the part of the authorities, cannot be approved by this Court”.

(underline supplied)

15. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Apex Court again in Priyambada Sharma (Dr.) [2025 SCC Online SC 205] while allowing the review petition filed by a group of medical students who completed their studies. In that order, the Apex Court held thus:

                  “1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the present review petitions deserve to be allowed to the extent that the review petitioners who have completed their studies in the month of July 2022, and were thereafter appointed and were working as Senior Residents, should not be deprived of their degrees. In other words, the degrees awarded to them, despite the judgment of this Court dated 17/10/2022 passed in the civil appeals, would be treated as legal and valid. This does not include Dr. Priyambada Sharma.

                  2. As far as Dr. Priyambada Sharma is concerned, it is stated that she had continued with her studies till the judgment dated 17/10/2022 was passed. In view of the said judgment, she was prevented from continuing with her further studies. It is stated that Dr. Priyambada Sharma had taken admission on 17.07.2019.

                  3. Keeping in view the fact that Dr. Priyambada Sharma already studied for almost three years, we permit her to continue and complete her studies at the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling, West Bengal.

                  4. At the same time, we deem it appropriate to impose consolidated costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on the authorities concerned, viz., the University and the College, which shall be borne by them jointly and equally, which will be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Government of West Bengal, within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is received by them.

                  5. Recording the aforesaid, the review petitions are disposed of.

                  6. The judgment dated 17/10/2022 shall stand reviewed and modified to the extent indicated above”.

16. A learned Single Judge of this Court as per the judgment dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.(C)No.44681 of 2025 considered a writ petition filed by the petitioner therein who after completing her MBBS undergraduate course and MD Pathology, applied for DM Clinical Haematology in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-Super Speciality 2024 (NEET SS), 2024 conducted on 30.03.2025 and obtained rank 8022. But, the petitioner did not get an allotment even in the mop-up round. While so, the petitioner came to understand that a seat for the course of DM Clinical Haematology had fallen vacant at the 3rd respondent institute due to the withdrawal of a candidate who was allotted the seat in the mop-up round. Immediately, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation to the 2nd respondent vide email dated 12.08.2025 and followed it up with Exhibit P3 dated 19.09.2025. As there was no response from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Madras, and the same was disposed of by Ext.P4 order dated 15.09.2025, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. As the direction was not complied within the time granted, the petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case before the High Court of Madras. As things stood thus, the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences issued notification for conducting the NEET-2025, the registration of which was to commence on 05.11.2025 and the examination scheduled on 26.12.2025 and 27.12.2025. On enquiry with the 3rd respondent institute, it was informed that one seat in DM Clinical Haematology is not filled up due to the non-reporting of the candidate. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.44681 of 2025 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent therein to issue order of allotment to the petitioner in the available vacant seat of DM Clinical Haematology in the 3rd respondent institute and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to not declare the available seat of DM Clinical Haematology for NEET SS 2024 as lapsed seat.By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Priayambada Sharma [2022 SCC Online SC 1442] the learned Single Judge held thus:

                  “7. On merits also, the challenge cannot be entertained since direction for allotment cannot be issued at the instance of an individual candidate, even if a vacancy is available to accommodate that person. As rightly submitted by the learned DSGI, if allotment is made on nomination basis that will adversely affect the rights of other candidates. The decision in Kevin Joy (supra) was rendered by the Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 and considering the special circumstances involved and cannot therefore be made applicable to the facts of this case”.

                  (underline supplied)

17. In the instant case, by Annexure A interim order dated 09.12.2024, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents in the writ petition, that is, MCC, Directorate General of Health Services and the College concerned, to admit the 1st respondent herein - writ petitioner to the course forthwith, if he satisfies all other parameters. Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act, Annexure C Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023 and Annexure D circular dated 22.10.2024 issued by the appellant and also the NEET-UG Counselling 2024 Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme referred to supra would make it clear that the competent among the respondents to conduct counselling and allot seats in various colleges in the 15% All India quota is the MCC. Admittedly, there was only one seat vacant in the 4th respondent college. From the materials placed on record, it is clear that it is the 5th respondent who was entitled to be admitted to that seat, being a student having a higher rank than that of the 1st respondent. She could not participate in the admission process when the 1st respondent was admitted by the college consequent to Annexure A interim order of the learned Single Judge, since the admission portal was already closed by the MCC. But subsequently, when, as per the direction of the Apex Court, the portal was opened by the MCC, the 5th respondent participated in the admission process, and she was rightly admitted by the MCC in the 4th respondent college.

18. While going through Annexure A interim order of the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents therein to admit the 1st respondent, only if he satisfies all other parameters. When a direction is issued to the respondents collectively to admit the 1st respondent, that means the judgment has to be complied with by the competent among the respondents. In the instant case, it is the MCC that is the competent respondent to make allotment of the seat. But the 4th respondent college, after sending two e-mails to the MCC, produced as Exts. R3 (c) and (d), admitted the 1st respondent in its college, absolutely without authority and without verifying his entitlement.

19. From Exts.R3(a) and (b) affidavits produced by the 4th respondent college, we notice that the admission granted to the 1st and 5th respondents by the 4th respondent college is purely provisional, subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the admission granted to the 1st respondent in the 4th respondent college was finalised as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the order of the Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.833 of 2024.

20. Now, a situation has arisen where two students are admitted to a particular seat due to the negligent act on the part of the 4th respondent college. The MCC also cannot escape the liability of the aforementioned negligence by not responding to the emails sent by the college, especially when MCC is also a party to the writ petition and was aware of the interim direction of the learned Single Judge. Considerable precious period of the student life of the 1st respondent is wasted by the aforementioned careless and casual actions of the College and MCC. At the same time, viewed in the light of the judgments referred supra, it is only to be held that since two students are admitted to a particular seat, both cannot be permitted to continue. Since the admission granted to the 1st respondent was without following the procedure and also to a seat disentitled by him, and further that the admission was only a provisional one, the 1st respondent has to go out from the college.

21. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Single Judge ought not have allowed the writ petition without considering these aspects. Therefore, the writ appeals are liable to be allowed.

                  In the result, these writ appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.43449 of 2024, and the writ petition stands dismissed. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.