The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has declined to interfere with the dismissal of a petition seeking a 1% reservation for eligible senior citizens in MBBS and other medical course admissions through NEET. The court held that introducing such a quota falls within the domain of the competent government or legislature, rather than being a matter for judicial direction.
Background
In Ashok Bahar v. Union of India and Others, the appellant challenged an order dated August 24, 2026, by which a Single Judge had dismissed his writ petition. He had sought directions for the authorities to consider his representation proposing a special reservation for senior citizens in medical admissions.
The appellant argued that his request was limited to consideration of the representation and did not ask the court to frame a particular policy. He also questioned the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the Single Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla examined the request and the submissions made by the parties. The court noted that the National Testing Agency functions as an examining body and operates under the existing laws and policies governing medical admissions.
The Bench observed,
“Obviously, as of now, there is no such provision. These are matters to be considered either by the competent legislature or the concerned government, as the case may be.”
The judges further explained that a writ of mandamus - a court order requiring a public authority to perform a legally enforceable duty - requires an existing right or mandatory obligation that has not been fulfilled. The representation seeking a senior citizens’ quota was not founded on such an enforceable right.
The Bench also raised the question of whether an age limit exists for admission to MBBS and other medical courses. The issue, it said, was for the executive or legislature to consider, unless an age limit had already been prescribed.
Finding no error in the Single Judge’s judgment, the Division Bench declined to issue the requested direction. It clarified that the appellant could pursue the matter before the executive or legislature.
The appeal was decided on October 15, 2026.
