The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition filed by a postgraduate medical aspirant challenging the cancellation of first and second rounds of NEET-PG counselling for the 2025 academic year. The court made it clear that no candidate can claim an indefeasible right to a seat once the admission rules are lawfully amended.
The petition was filed by Anushka Yadav, a 29-year-old doctor from Durg district, who had already joined an MD (Radio Diagnosis) course through State counselling. Her admission, along with others, was cancelled after the State amended Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, and ordered fresh counselling.
She approached the court arguing that the cancellation was arbitrary and violated her fundamental rights.
Yadav had qualified NEET-PG 2025 and initially secured a seat through All India Quota counselling, which she later resigned from after getting a preferred seat through Chhattisgarh State counselling. She deposited substantial fees, submitted original documents, and formally joined the course.
Days later, the State government cancelled the completed counselling rounds, citing amendments to Rule 11 and compliance with Supreme Court rulings on institutional preference in PG medical admissions.
Aggrieved, Yadav challenged the cancellation and sought protection of her admission.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the admission process was complete and the candidate had joined the course, the State had no authority to undo it retrospectively.
It was submitted that the amended rules could apply only to future counselling rounds and not to admissions already finalised. The sudden cancellation, the petitioner claimed, caused serious academic and financial harm.
Read Also:- Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Gift Deed Cancellation, Says Senior Care Can Be an Implied Condition
The State, however, defended its decision, telling the court that the amendments were made to align the admission process with binding Supreme Court judgments. The government argued that provisional admissions do not create an absolute right, especially when the rules themselves are under judicial scrutiny.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, speaking for the Bench, noted that admissions to PG medical courses remain subject to statutory rules and judicial review.
The court observed that once Rule 11 was amended, the entire seat matrix and reservation roster changed, making it necessary to redo the counselling process.
The Bench was firm in its view that “no vested or indefeasible right accrues merely on the basis of provisional allotment or admission.” It added that institutional preference must strictly follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and individual hardship cannot override constitutional principles.
After hearing both sides, the High Court found no merit in the petition and upheld the State’s decision to cancel the earlier counselling rounds.
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that its ruling would apply uniformly to all similarly placed candidates, closing the door on further litigation over the same issue.
Case Title: Anushka Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No: WPC No. 367 of 2026
