Disposed¶26

Dr Ankit Dhankar and Ors. v. the Medical Counselling Committee and Ors.

Delhi HC19 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/16337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DR ANKIT DHANKAR AND ORS. v. THE MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE AND ORS., W.P.(C) 16337/2024 & CM APPL. 68905/2024, High Court of Delhi, Jyoti Singh, J., 19.11.2025. Writ petition under Article 226 challenging counselling scheme FAQ clauses (6.6, 6.6.3, Q.40) and admission brochure Clause 2.2 as contrary to Regulation 4.4 PGMER-23 and Article 14; disposed of as infructuous (academic session 2024-25) without adjudication on merits; all questions of law including challenge to Regulations left open; pending application disposed. Keywords: PGMER-2023, Regulation 4.4, MCC counselling 2024-25, infructuous, Article 14, Article 226.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition disposed of as infructuous with no opinion on merits, all questions of law left open; pending application also disposed of. ¶26

Dr Ankit Dhankar and Ors. Vs the Medical Counselling… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition disposed of as infructuous with no opinion on merits, all questions of law left open; pending application also disposed of.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 6.6, Clause 6.6.3 and Question 40 of the FAQs of the Information and Bulletin Counselling Scheme, 2024 published by Respondent No.1 are violative of Regulation 4.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023. +2 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, which relates to academic session 2024-25, has become infructuous; the Court found merit in the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.4 to that effect and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the case; all questions of law raised in the petition, including the challenge to the Regulations, were left open.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jyoti Singh, J.), order dated 19.11.2025 in W.P.(C) 16337/2024: Postgraduate medical aspirants filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of Clause 6.6, 6.6.3 and Question 40 of the FAQs of the Information and Bulletin Counselling Scheme, 2024 (published by Respondent No.1 MCC on 06.11.2024) and Clause 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the Admission Brochure for PG Programmes, 2024 (published by Respondent No.2) as violative of Regulation 4.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23), a declaration that the actions of Respondents No.1 and No.2 were ultra vires Article 14, and directions for counselling of the 50% internal/State/Institutional Quota seats for session 2024-25. Counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that the petition had become infructuous as it related to academic session 2024-25. Finding merit, the Court disposed of the writ petition, making it clear that no opinion was expressed on the merits and that all questions of law, including the challenge to the Regulations, were left open. Pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16337/2024 & CM APPL. 68905/2024

¶4

DR ANKIT DHANKAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Azad Bansala, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anmika Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advocates for R1.

¶7

Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R2. Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Tanishq Shrivastava, Mr. Vedant Sood, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty and Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Advocates for R4.

¶8

Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Mr. Zillur Rahman and Mr. Shashi Suman, Advocates for R5.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 19.11.2025

¶12

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article

¶13

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶14

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the Clause 6.6, 6.6.3 and Question 40 of the FAQ’s of the Information and Bulletin Counselling Scheme, 2024 published by the Respondent No.1 on 06.11.2024, being in violation of Regulation 4.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23); and

¶15

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the Clause 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the Admission brochure for Post Graduate

¶16

W.P.(C) 16337/2024

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:58:06

¶20

Programmes, 2024 published by the Respondent No.2, being in violation of Regulation 4.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23); and

¶21

(iii) Issue a writ or direction or order declaring the actions of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 as ultra vires and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and

¶22

(iv) Issue a direction to the Respondent No. 3 (GNCTD) to constitute an appropriate committee in accordance with Regulation 4.4 of the PostGraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23) to conduct the counselling for the 50% internal seats/50% State Quota seats/50% Institutional Quota seats of the medical colleges affiliated to Respondent No.2 University for the academic session 2024-25; and

¶23

(v) Direct the Respondent No. 1 MCC to conduct the remaining rounds of counselling of the 50% internal seats/50% State Quota seats/50% Institutional Quota seats of the medical colleges affiliated to Respondent No.2 University for the academic session 2024-25 in accordance with Regulation 4.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23); and

¶24

(vi) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, on instructions, submits that the present writ petition relates to the academic session 2024-25 and has become infructuous.

¶26

I find merit in this submission. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case and all questions of law raised in the petition including challenge to the Regulations are left open.

¶27

Pending application is disposed of.

¶28

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶29

NOVEMBER 19, 2025/YA

¶30

W.P.(C) 16337/2024

¶31

Page 2 of 2

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:58:06

Dr Ankit Dhankar and Ors. v. the Medical Counselling Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ankit Dhankar and Ors. v. the Medical Counselling Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu Devi Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Individual Non Taxable Entity, Director a and T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commisisoner of Cgst Delhi West & Anr.

Munna Prasad Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

M/S Rbc Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mansi Tanwar Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Sub Registrar II a Punjabi Bagh & Ors.

Mehul Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Navin Road Lines Vs Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

M/S Ashish Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Aryan Infraheight (P) Limited Vs Signature Global (India). Ltd.

Vaishali Bhatija Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre & Anr.

Aryan Infraheight (P) Limited Vs Signature Global Pvt. Ltd.

Deepinder Singh Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.

Phonics Group of Institutions Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Jagannath University Jaipur through Its Registrar Vs Pharmacy Council of India & Anr.