Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHERversusMISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 747
- Decided
- 29 April 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's award of Rs.10,00,000 each as compensation was arbitrary and excessive, reducing it to Rs.1,00,000 each, while affirming that the regulatory reforms adequately curb seat‑blocking.
Summary
The petitioners, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education, challenged a High Court order that awarded Rs.10,00,000 each to two NEET‑PG aspirants alleging seat‑blocking during counselling. The aspirants claimed that the mop‑up round denied them the opportunity to secure their preferred MD Radiology seats, resulting in less meritorious candidates obtaining those seats. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's compensation was justified and whether the reforms introduced by the authorities adequately addressed the malpractice of seat‑blocking. It held that the reforms – including security deposits, online counselling, synchronized calendars and strict penalties – substantially curbed seat‑blocking, and that the award of Rs.10,00,000 each was arbitrary and excessive. Consequently, the Court reduced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000 each, set aside the higher award, and issued detailed directions to implement a nationally synchronized counselling framework. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of Rs.10,00,000 compensation to the respondents for alleged seat‑blocking in NEET‑PG counselling.
- Whether the reforms introduced by the State and the National Medical Commission sufficiently address the malpractice of seat‑blocking and ensure merit‑based admissions.
- Whether the respondents were denied any valuable right to participate in the mop‑up round under the prevailing counselling regulations.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Streamlining of the counselling process in NEET-PG; curbing the malpractice of seat blocking to ensure transparency and fairness in the admission process; compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the High Court to the respondents for seat blocking in NEET- PG Headnotes† Education/Educational Courses – Post Graduate Medical Courses – Admission process – NEET PG counselling – Malpractice of seat blocking – Prevention of – Need for transparency and fairness – Directions issued to the concerned
Subjects
Post Graduate Medical CoursesNEET PG CounsellingMedical educationAdmission processSeat blockingCounselling processMop‑up roundMerit‑based admission systemTransparency and fairnessCompensation for seat blockingNationally synchronized counselling calendarPre‑Counselling Fee DisclosureCentralized Fee Regulation FrameworkAadhaar‑based seat trackingUniform Counselling Conduct CodeThird‑party oversight mechanism
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2687 : 2025 INSC 747
State of U.P. & Another
v.
Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9298 of 2018)
29 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Streamlining of the counselling process in NEET-PG; curbing the
malpractice of seat blocking to ensure transparency and fairness in
the admission process; compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded
by the High Court to the respondents for seat blocking in NEET-
PG counselling, if was justified.
Headnotes†
Education/Educational Courses – Post Graduate Medical
Courses – Admission process – NEET PG counselling –
Malpractice of seat blocking – Prevention of – Need for
transparency and fairness – Directions issued to the concerned
authorities to ensure effective implementation of the revised
counselling framework:
Held: Implementation of a Nationally synchronized counselling
calendar to align All India Quota (AIQ ) and State rounds and prevent
seat blocking across systems – Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure
by all private/deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel,
caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges to be mandatory –
Establishment of a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under
the National Medical Commission (NMC) – Permitting upgrade
windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better
seats without reopening counselling to new entrants – Publication
of raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for
transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams – Enforcement of
strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security
deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat
offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges – Implementation of
Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and
misrepresentation – State authorities and institutional DMEs to be
held accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or
schedule violations – Uniform Counselling Conduct Code to be
2688 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
adopted across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up
rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines – A third-party
oversight mechanism to be set up under NMC for annual audits
of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness. [Para 16]
Education/Educational Courses – Post Graduate medical
courses – Admission process – NEET PG counselling –
Respondent Nos.1, 2 (aspirants in the first NEET-PG) filed
writ petitions alleging large-scale seat blocking, stating that
nearly 80% of the seats were filled during the mop-up round
resulting in the seats of their first preference being eventually
allotted to less meritorious candidates – High Court issued
specific directions to the Government authorities and also
directed payment of compensation to the Respondents for
seat blocking – Challenge to:
Held: Various reforms introduced by the authorities address
the concerns raised by the High Court in the impugned order
ensuring that meritorious students are not deprived of their
rightful opportunities, impugned order not interfered with in
entirety – Directions issued by this Court to ensure the effective
implementation of the revised counselling framework upholding
the principles of merit, fairness and transparency – However, on
facts, no valuable right was denied to the respondents regarding
participation in the mop-up round and once admission was granted,
the process concluded unless specific exceptions applied as per
the admission guidelines – Award of Rs.10,00,000/- each as
compensation is arbitrary and excessive – Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Impugned order modified.
[Paras 14.4, 15.3, 15.4]
Education/Educational Courses – Post Graduate Medical
Courses – Admission process – NEET PG counselling –
Malpractice of seat blocking – Discussed. [Paras 7, 8]
Case Law Cited
Sharwan Kumar v. DGHS and Others (1993) 3 SCC 332; Ashish
Ranjan v. Union of India (2016) 11 SCC 225; Modern Dental
College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2016]
3 SCR 579 : (2016) 7 SCC 353; Christian Medical College Vellore
Association v. Medical Council of India, Order of Supreme Court
dated 03.05.2017 in WP(C) No. 261 of 2017; Education Promotion
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2689
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
Society of India v. Union of India, Order of Supreme Court dated
04.05.2017 in WP(C) No. 244 of 2017; Nihila P.P. v. the Medical
Counselling Committee and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3283;
Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust v. MCI, Order of Supreme Court
dated 09.05.2017 – referred to.
List of Acts
Medical Council Act, 1956; National Medical Commission Act, 2019;
MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations and Regulations
on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
List of Keywords
Post Graduate Medical Courses; NEET PG Counselling; Medical
education; Admission process; Seat blocking; Counselling process;
Mop-up round; Seat allotted to less meritorious candidates;
Safeguarding interests of meritorious candidates; Medical Council
of India (MCI); National Medical Commission (NMC); Merit-based
admission system; Transparency and fairness; Compensation for
seat blocking; Arbitrary and excessive; Nationally synchronized
counselling calendar; Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure; Centralized
Fee Regulation Framework; Aadhaar-based seat tracking; Uniform
Counselling Conduct Code across all States; Third-party oversight
mechanism under NMC.
Case Arising From
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 9298 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 28550 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Pettioners:
Ankit Goel.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv., Mohan Kumar, Ms. Neetu Singh,
Ms. Ishika, Ms. Asia Beg, Ms. Rashmi Pandey, Ms. Bobby Anand,
Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Dr. Tribhuwan Bhandari, Sandeep Bansal,
Narender Singh, Ms. Mikshita, Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Awnish Maithani,
Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Paranjay Tripathi, Rajesh Raj.
2690 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and
perused the materials placed before us.
2. This Special Leave Petition arises from the final judgment and
order dated 19.01.20181 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad2 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 28550 of 2017,
whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following
observations and directions:
“In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court no admission
can be granted after the cut of date. A time schedule is
required to be strictly adhered to. However, in the given
circumstances the petitioners are entitled to compensation,
which the Court computes at Rs.Ten lakhs each payable
to the petitioners. The said amount shall be paid by the
Director General of Medical Education and Training, …
within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of the order.
Before we part with the case, we are of the opinion that
there is a need to issue further directions as we have found
that there has been a large-scale blocking of seats. 80%
of the seats were filled up in the mop up round. Obviously,
there is a flaw in the admission procedure.
We, accordingly, direct the Principal Secretary, Medical
Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow … to take this
fact into consideration of large-scale blocking of seats and
come out with a foolproof admission procedure, which
would eliminate such blockage of seats and ensure that
maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and
second round of counseling. We also direct the Principal
Secretary to hold an inquiry into the circumstances
of diluting the admission procedure and allowing the
1 For short, “the impugned order”
2 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2691
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
candidates who had appeared in the first and second
round of counseling to be considered again in the mop
up round in the garb of misinterpreting the orders of the
Supreme Court. Such inquiry shall be made within two
months and action be taken against the erring officials.
For future admissions in subsequent academic sessions,
we direct that after the first and second round of counseling,
a window should be opened for the candidates who had
taken admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter
allow the remaining seats to be filled up in the mop up
round. By this procedure allowing the candidates to upgrade
their seats would not amount to third round of counseling.
Further, the upgradation of seats of the preferred choice
of the candidate would ensure fairness in the admission
process and allow the meritorious candidates to take
admission not only in the preferred choice of seats but
also in better streams and, thus, by doing so, discipline
would be maintained.
The writ petitions are disposed of.”
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners viz., State of U.P.,
and the Director General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow,
U.P. – who were Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition – have
approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4. By order dated 16.04.2018, this Court has granted an order of interim
stay of the operation of the impugned order.
5. According to the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein,
the writ petitioners were aspirants in the first NEET-PG conducted
for the academic year 2017-18. The ranks secured by them as
well as the seats allotted to them in the first and second rounds of
counselling are detailed below:
Particulars Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2
(Bhavna Tiwari) (Sonal Sharma)
All India Rank 13979 11280
State Rank 1247 1011
2692 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Preferences Choice 1: MD Choice 1: MD
Radiodiagnosis Radiodiagnosis
Choice 2: MD Choice 2: MD Skin
Pathology & VD
Choice 3: MD
Paediatrics
First Round MD Pathology at MD Paediatrics at
allotment Subharti Medical Rohilkhand Medical
College, Meerut College, Bareilly
Second Round MD Pathology at MD Paediatrics at
allotment Subharti Medical Rohilkhand Medical
College, Meerut College, Bareilly
5.1. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that there had been a
deviation in the admission process. Candidates, who had already
been allotted seats in the first and second rounds of counselling
were again permitted to appear in the mop-up round. It was
alleged that a number of seats in the Radiology course were
available in the mop-up round and were allotted to candidates,
who were less meritorious than the writ petitioners, including
those who had already participated in the earlier rounds of
counselling. Alleging large-scale seat blocking and asserting
that nearly 80% of the seats were filled during the mop-up
round – resulting in the seats of their first preference being
eventually allotted to less meritorious candidates – Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 / writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition
seeking the following reliefs:
(i) A declaration that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) PG 2017 Brochure,
published by the King George’s Medical University,
Lucknow – inasmuch as they deprived Respondent Nos.1
and 2 of an opportunity to appear in the mop-up round – are
ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) A direction to the authorities to grant permission to
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to attend classes in the institutions
of their first choice, where they have already been admitted
in a different discipline.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2693
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
(iii) A direction to the authorities to pass consequential orders
with respect to the admission of Respondent Nos.1 and 2
as per their first choice and merit.
(iv) A direction to the authorities to undertake necessary
reshuffling of admissions in medical colleges based on
merit and candidate preferences, by maintaining a common
selection list for admission to PG courses.
(v) Any other order or direction as the Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) An award of costs of the petition in favour of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners
that the High Court, after hearing all parties, rightly
disposed of the writ petition with appropriate observations
and directions. Therefore, no interference is warranted by
this court.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that apart from
directing the payment of compensation to Respondent Nos.1
and 2 / writ petitioners, the High Court was categorical in addressing
the issue of seat blocking and in safeguarding the interests of
meritorious candidates. Accordingly, it issued specific directions to
the Government authorities, viz.,
(i) To ensure that no seat blocking takes place in the future in
medical courses and that the majority of the seats are filled
during the first and second rounds of medical counselling.
(ii) To ensure that less meritorious students do not secure admission
to relatively more prestigious Post Graduate medical courses
over candidates who are higher in merit.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the NEET-PG counselling process
was conceived as a transparent, merit-based national mechanism
for allocating postgraduate medical seats. However, over time, it
has come under increasing scrutiny for facilitating widespread seat
blocking. This malpractice distorts the actual availability of seats,
fosters inequity among aspirants, and often reduces the process
to one governed more by chance than merit. Seat blocking is not
merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws
2694 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak
policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced
disincentives and technical controls, the core challenges of
synchronization, real-time visibility, and uniform enforcement remain
largely unaddressed. Achieving a truly fair and efficient system will
require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination,
technological modernization, and robust regulatory accountability at
both State and Central levels.
8. Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling occurs when candidates
temporarily accept seats, only to abandon them later after securing
more preferred options. This leads to those seats remaining
unavailable in earlier rounds and opening up only in later stages,
disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants, who may have already
committed to less preferred choices. Delays in state counselling,
last-minute seat additions or deletions, and lack of coordination
between quotas worsen the issue. As a result, lower-ranked
candidates can secure better seats by taking risks, while merit-based
selection is undermined.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioners
submitted that except for the payment of compensation to Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, the other directions issued by the High Court have
been duly complied with.
9.1. It is further submitted that to streamline the counselling process
and to curb the issue of seat blocking, the State of U.P. has
taken substantial steps by introducing the following measures:
(i) By Government Order No.12/71-4-2018-18/18 dated
08.03.2018, a security deposit was stipulated under
Clause 5, with a view to deter candidates from the practice
of not joining the seats allotted to them in the first two
rounds of counselling. This measure has proven effective,
as failure to join the allotted seat results in forfeiture of
the security deposit. For better appreciation, Clause 5 is
extracted below:
“(5) Security Money
For participating in the NEET PG 2018 counselling
process in respect of Government medical
colleges, security money is fixed as Rs.30,000/-
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2695
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
(thirty thousand rupees) and in respect of private
medical and dental colleges, the same is fixed
as Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees). In the event
of candidates taking admission to the seat
allotted to them in the Govt./private medical/
dental college, security money deposited by
candidates shall be returned in the bank account
provided by them. Such candidates who do not
take admission inspite of allotment of seat, their
security money shall be forfeited.
Security money be got deposited by online
mode from the candidates participating in the
online counselling process of NEET PG 2018,
prior to choice filling.”
(ii) Earlier, the counselling for the stray vacancy round was
conducted manually (by offline mode) whereby the private
medical colleges were provided with a list of candidates
amounting to ten times the number of vacant seats. This
process often led to an arbitrary ‘pick and choose’ method
being adopted by certain private institutions. To prevent
such practices, the National Medical Commission, vide
communication dated 24.07.2023, directed that counselling
for all stray vacancy round seats be conducted through
an online process. It is pertinent to note that even prior
to this directive, the State had already implemented
online counselling for the mop-up and stray vacancy
rounds through the issuance of Government Order
No.1/348793/2023 dated 13.07.2023.
(iii) A one-year debarment has been envisaged for candidates
who fail to join the seats allotted to them in the stray
vacancy round. Accordingly, a stipulation to this effect was
incorporated in the Counselling Brochure for NEET-PG
2024, which reads as follows:
“If a candidate is allotted a seat in Stray round,
candidate has to report & join the allotted seat /
college else he / she shall be debarred from
UPNEET PG / MDS Counselling -2025 along
with forfeiture of security deposit”.
2696 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention
to the status of seat allotment and admissions after each round of
counselling in NEET - PG 2024, in the context of the measures
implemented to curb seat blocking. The details are tabulated below:
Particulars First Second Third Stray Special
Counselling Counselling Counselling Vacancy Stray
round Vacancy
round
Number 1640 1695 672 148 102
of allotted
students
Number of 965 1510 540 121 93
admitted
students
Number of 675 185 132 27 9
students not
admitted
Number of 59 49 15 2 0
students
who had
resigned
Note: - In the first round of counselling, there were 2026 seats in all,
and after receiving recognition for 74 new seats from N.M.C., total
2100 seats were placed in the second round of counselling process.
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
counselling process has been significantly refined, and the issue
of seat blocking has been effectively addressed to a large extent.
11. Additionally, the learned senior counsel for the NMC / MCI explained
how the scheme for admission to medical colleges evolved through
a series of judicial interventions.
11.1. In Sharwan Kumar v. DGHS and others3, this Court framed a
scheme for admission to medical courses. As per this scheme,
only two rounds of counselling were conducted for All India
Quota (AIQ) seats – the 1st and 2nd rounds of counselling. This
scheme was adopted by State Governments for admission to
3 (1993) 3 SCC 332
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2697
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
State Quota seats. It also provided that vacant or unfilled AIQ
seats would be surrendered to the State Quota or concerned
colleges after the last date for admission. Accordingly, all
States followed the pattern of conducting two rounds each for
AIQ and State counselling. However, delays by counselling
authorities led to deviations from the schedule, resulting in
many students being deprived of the opportunity to participate
in counselling on par with others, particularly affecting their
chances in State counselling.
11.2. The above issue came under scrutiny in Ashish Ranjan v.
Union of India4, where this Court approved the MCI’s notification
regarding the counselling schedule for the first NEET-PG,
which also involved two rounds of counselling. Under this
system, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS)
conducted counselling for AIQ (both PG and MBBS) while
State Governments or their nominated authorities conducted
counselling for State Quota seats, including Government seats
in private colleges.
11.3. That apart, associations or consortia of medical colleges
conducted counselling for private colleges within States.
For deemed universities, counselling practices varied: some
conducted their own, while others joined private college
counselling. However, this decentralized system often led
to malpractices, such as the admission of less meritorious
students or selections made without regard to merit. This
created a situation where private medical and dental colleges
could admit students in violation of the merit-based principle.
This concern was addressed in Modern Dental College and
Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh5, where, the
Constitution Bench of this Court directed that all admissions
to medical and dental courses for the academic year
2016-17 must be made based on the NEET merit list, followed
by centralized counselling conducted by the respective State.
4 (2016) 11 SCC 225
5 (2016) 7 SCC 353
2698 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11.4. Further, in its order dated 03.05.2017 in WP(C) No.261 of
2017 – Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Medical
Council of India, this Court directed that States must conduct
common counselling for admissions to medicine courses.
11.5. Similarly, in its order dated 04.05.2017 in WP (C) No. 244 of
2017 – Education Promotion Society of India v. Union of India,
this Court held that counselling for deemed Universities must
also be conducted by the concerned State Government or its
designated authority.
11.6. Finally, in its order dated 09.05.2017 passed in WP (C) No.
267 of 2017, this Court laid down detailed guidelines for
admissions. One key directive was that, after the 2nd round of
counselling, students, who had already taken admission would
not be allowed to vacate their seats. This was intended to
prevent seat blocking and ensure that the maximum number
of seats were filled during the 1st and 2nd rounds of counselling.
12. The learned senior counsel for the MCI / NMC further submitted that
the Medical Council of India (MCI) and subsequently, the National
Medical Commission (NMC) have taken several steps to prevent seat
blocking and to ensure transparency and fairness in the admission
process for medical courses.
12.1. The MCI while exercising its powers under section 33 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and with the prior approval
of the Government of India, amended the MCI Postgraduate
Medical Education Regulations and Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997. Through notifications dated
10.03.2017 and 27.06.2017, it inserted Regulation 9A and 5A
respectively. These amendments mandated that admissions
to medical courses in all medical colleges, including deemed
universities, must be made only through common or combined
counselling conducted by the respective State Government,
Central Government, or their designated authorities.
12.2. In compliance with directions issued by this Court, the MCI
further amended the Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, via notifications dated 05.04.2018 and 20.08.2018.
Among other provisions, the amendment required the
counselling authority to forward a list of candidates, in order
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2699
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
of merit equal to ten times the number of vacant seats to the
concerned medical colleges for admission to postgraduate
medical courses.
12.3. Subsequently, the Central Government through a notification
dated 24.09.2020 repealed all provisions of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. In its place, the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019, was brought into force, dissolving the
MCI and the Board of Governors in supersession of MCI. The
National Medical Commission was established under the new
Act to regulate the medical profession and education, and to
lay down standards for the same.
12.4. In pursuance of the order of this Court in Nihila P.P. v. the
Medical Counselling Committee and others6, the Government
of India, in consultation with the NMC, presented a revised
counselling scheme before this Court. This scheme included
four rounds of counselling, namely: 1st round, 2nd round, mop-up
round and stray vacancy round. This Court in its judgment dated
16.12.2021, approved the implementation of this four-round
counselling process for both undergraduate and postgraduate
courses, effective from the academic year 2021-22 onwards.
12.5. As per paragraph (f) of the above judgment, the option of
upgradation and free exit was allowed only during Round 1
of the central counselling. Paragraph (g) stated that no
upgradation would be permitted from Round 2 to the mop-up
round. Paragraph (h) categorically provided that candidates
who had joined the allotted college in Round 2 would not be
permitted to resign and would be ineligible to participate in
any further rounds of counselling. However, this restriction
has since been modified, and candidates are now permitted
to upgrade their seats up to the 3rd round of counselling.
After the 3rd round, they are barred from vacating their seats.
Additionally, paragraph (i) provided that only those candidates
who had not joined the allotted seats in Round 2 would be
eligible to participate in further rounds of counselling. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
6 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3283
2700 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“…
The proposed modified scheme of online 4 rounds of
counselling will be in tune with the prevailing norms of
counselling (including the fees and security deposit)
being followed for Central Institutes / Universities. The
salient points of the scheme are as follows:
a) There will be 04 rounds of online counselling i.e.,
AIQ Round I, AIQ Round 2, AIQ Mop-up Round and
AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
b) The seats which were earlier reverted back to the
respective States after the completion of Round 2 of
AIQ will continue to be filled in the AIQ Mop-up Round
and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round to be conducted by
MCC of DGHS, MoHFW in online mode.
c) The said rounds will only be conducted for the AIQ
seats having All India character which are contributed
by the States for 15% UG seats and 50% PG seats.
d) Fresh registration of candidates will be allowed in:
AIQ Round 1
AIQ Round 2
AIQ Mop-up Round.
e) There will be no fresh registration for candidates
in the AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
f) There will be an option for upgradation and free
exit, only in Round 1 of the AIQ counselling.
g) There will not be an option of upgradation to Mop-
up round from Round 2.
h) Candidates who have joined the allotted seat in
Round 2 and further rounds of counselling will not
be allowed to resign and will also be ineligible to
take part in further rounds of any type of counselling.
i) Candidates who have not joined the allotted seat
in Round 2 will be eligible for further rounds of
counselling subject to forfeiture of security deposit
and fresh registration in only mop-up round.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2701
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
j) The provisions with regard to security deposit, option
of free exit and eligibility for participation will be as
per the Gazette Notification No. MCI-34(41)/2018 –
Med./109835 dated 18.05.2018.
3. This Court has been informed that the modified
schemes shall be implemented for the current year
2021-2022 for admissions to NEET UG and PG.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of
MCC, Directorate of Health Services, nothing remains
to be adjudicated in the Special Leave Petition and
Writ Petition which are disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
13. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that in addition
to previous measures, the NMC has taken further steps to ensure
that student admissions are conducted in strict adherence to the
rule of merit. It was observed that the offline mode of counselling
during the stray round was detrimental to the interests of both
medical education and meritorious students. To ensure fairness in
the admission process, adherence to the merit list and to prevent
seat blocking, it became necessary to mandate that all counselling
rounds be conducted online – both by State Governments for state
quota seats and by the Medical Counselling Committee, DGHS for
All India Quota (AIQ) seats.
13.1. Accordingly, the Medical Counselling Committee filed an
application (I.A.No.132614/2022 in W.P (C) No.267 of 2017)
requesting directions to conduct the stray vacancy round for
100% Deemed Universities in both Under-Graduate and Post
Graduate Courses, via online mode. It is pertinent to note that
MCC is responsible for conducting counselling for admissions
to all Deemed Universities. Based on this application, this Court
through its order dated 12.12.2022 permitted and directed MCC
to conduct stray vacancy round for all Deemed Universities
through online mode.
13.2. Considering the above, and with a view to uphold the rule
of merit and safeguard the interests of meritorious students,
the NMC after thorough discussions, decided that all States
and Colleges must conduct the stray round of counselling
2702 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
exclusively through online mode for MBBS admissions
starting from the academic year 2023-24. This decision was
communicated to all States and relevant authorities through
a circular dated 24.07.2023.
13.3. In exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 25
and sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the NMC Act, 2019, the
NMC notified Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations,
2023. Under Regulations 4.3 and 4.4, the concept of Common
Counselling was introduced, mandating that all rounds of PG
medical counselling must be held solely in online mode by the
appropriate State and Central Authorities. Additionally, these
regulations require colleges to disclose their fee structure,
enabling candidates to make informed choices and reducing the
chances of students vacating seats due to unexpected high fees.
13.4. Similarly, under the powers granted by sub section (1) of section
24, and various clauses under sub-section (2) of section 57
of the NMC Act, 2019, the NMC also notified the Graduate
Medical Education Regulation, 2023. Regulations 12, 13, and
14 specify that admission to the MBBS course shall only be
conducted through Common Counselling organized by the
authority designated by the Central Government. Regulation
16 categorically prohibits any form of admission other than
through common counselling.
13.5. Further, from the academic year 2023-24, the MCC, in
consultation with the NMC, decided that students allotted seats
in the stray round will not be permitted to vacate their seats.
If a student still vacates the seat, they will face forfeiture of
fees and will be barred from appearing in NEET PG / National
Exit Examination (NExT) (once implemented) for a period of
one year.
By pointing out the above, the learned senior counsel for the
NMC/MCI submitted that the two concerns raised by the High
Court stand adequately addressed by this respondent.
14. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the
NMC/MCI, it is discernible that the authorities have introduced
several regulatory measures – such as security deposits, debarment
clauses, round finality rules, and undertakings from candidates –
to enforce commitment and reduce strategic blocking of seats. In
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2703
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the National
Medical Commission (NMC) has implemented comprehensive reforms
to the counselling process, aiming to prevent seat blocking, ensure
optimum seat utilization, and promote a transparent, merit-based
admission system in medical education.
14.1. Currently, all rounds of counselling for State quota seats are
conducted by the respective State Government or its designated
authority, while counselling for All India Quota (AIQ) seats and
deemed universities is managed by the Medical Counselling
Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health
Services (DGHS). The entire counselling process is now
conducted online, which has eliminated the discretion previously
held by private medical colleges and deemed universities to
admit students independently after State counselling. As a
result, seat blocking has been effectively addressed.
14.2. To further optimize seat allocation, any seat vacated due to
resignation, surrender, or migration is retained and made
available in subsequent rounds of AIQ counselling. The
number of counselling rounds has been increased from two
to four – namely, Round 1, Round 2, Mop-Up Round, and
Stray Vacancy Round. This expansion provides candidates
with greater opportunities to secure a seat and reduces the
wastage of available seats.
14.3. Furthermore, in the Stray Vacancy Round, candidates who are
allotted and join a seat are not permitted to resign thereafter.
Those, who are allotted a seat but fail to join will forfeit their
fee and be debarred from appearing in the National Exit Test
(NExT) for one year, once NExT is implemented.
14.4. These reforms directly address the concerns raised by the
High Court in the impugned order and ensure that meritorious
students are not deprived of their rightful opportunities.
Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court in its entirety, but deem
it appropriate to issue certain directions to the concerned
authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the revised
counselling framework, thereby upholding the principles of
merit, fairness and transparency.
2704 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. Regarding the direction issued by the High Court for payment of
compensation to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that both the respondents had
participated in the first and second rounds of counselling and were
allotted seats accordingly. Their exclusion from the mop-up round
was in complete adherence to the directions issued by this Court
in Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India7 and Dar-us-Slam Educational
Trust v. MCI 8. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the question of
compensation does not arise and the High Court erred in directing
payment of Rs.10,00,000/- each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
15.1. Conversely, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 /
writ petitioners submitted that the respondents were denied the
opportunity to upgrade to their preferred MD Radiology seats
during the mop-up round. They argued that this denial facilitated
widespread seat blocking in the earlier rounds, which allowed
candidates with lower merit to secure admission while more
deserving candidates like themselves were left disadvantaged.
Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the High Court
observed that although admissions post the prescribed cut-off
date were not possible, the conduct of the State authorities
had caused significant disadvantage to Respondent Nos.1
and 2, warranting the award of compensation.
15.2. It is an admitted fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared
for NEET-PG 2017-18 with MD Radiology as their preferred
choice. When that was unavailable during the first two rounds,
they opted for Pathology and Paediatrics, respectively and
subsequently, joined their allotted colleges and completed
their PG courses. As per the then-prevailing counselling
procedure, candidates who accepted seats in earlier rounds
were precluded from participating in the mop-up round. The
High Court itself noted that no valuable right was denied to
the respondents regarding participation in the mop-up round
and that once admission was granted, the process concluded
unless specific exceptions applied as per the admission
guidelines.
7 (2016) 11 SCC 225
8 Order dated 09.05.2017
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2705
State of U.P. & Another v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari & Ors.
15.3. While the cause of the respondents in approaching the court
was reasonable and in fact catalyzed significant reforms in the
counselling process to curb seat blocking and uphold merit,
the award of Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation is found
to be arbitrary and excessive. The judgments relied upon by
the High Court pertained to different factual contexts where
students lost an academic year through no fault of their own.
Those cases are distinguishable from the present one, where
the respondents completed their courses. Moreover, awarding
compensation for seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling is not
a common practice.
15.4. The present case instead highlights systemic issues and
underscores the need for transparency and fairness in the
NEET-PG counselling process. Accordingly, in the interest of
justice, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each
to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards litigative expenses, to be
paid by the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The direction of the
High Court awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each
is hereby set aside and the impugned order is accordingly
modified.
16. As held by us in paragraph 14.4, we issue the following directions
to the concerned authorities:
(i) Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to
align AIQ and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across
systems.
(ii) Mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private /
deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit,
and miscellaneous charges.
(iii) Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the
National Medical Commission (NMC)
(iv) Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates
to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new
entrants.
(v) Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae
for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams.
2706 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(vi) Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of
security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams
(for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges.
(vii) Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple
seat holdings and misrepresentation.
(viii) Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under
contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.
(ix) Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States
for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal,
and grievance timelines.
(x) Set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual
audits of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness.
17. With the aforesaid directions and modification, this Special Leave
Petition stands disposed of.
18. Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Result of the case: Special Leave Petition disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Post Graduate Medical Courses"Sign in to search