Dismissed

Ajeet Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Sept 2026W.P.(C)/13506/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging a corrigendum notification dated 13.05.2026 that altered eligibility criteria for admission to the Bachelor of Optometry course. The petitioner argued the notification was issued by the Central Government without consulting the Commission, contrary to Section 11(g) of the Act. The Court found the notification was issued under the signature of the Commission's Secretary, and Section 11 does not require consultation with the Central Government for prescribing eligibility criteria. No other provision mandating such consultation was shown.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Ajeet Bhardwaj Vs Union of India & Anr. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010438682026 + W.P.(C) 13506/2026, CM APPL. 63014/2026 & CM APPL. 63015/2026

¶4

AJEET BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Umesh Sharma and Mr. Nishant Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Sarthak Rana, GP and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocate for R1 & 2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 16.09.2026

¶8

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, learned CGSC representing the Respondents.

¶9

By means of this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Notification dated 13.05.2026 (“ Impugned Notification ”) issued by the Secretary, National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (“ Commission ”), whereby the qualification for students seeking admission to Bachelor of Optometry Course has been altered. The Impugned Notification has been issued in the form of a corrigendum and has been styled as Corrigendum-2.

¶10

It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Impugned Notification has not been issued following the due process as given in the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 (“ Act ”). He has further stated that as a matter of fact, the Impugned

¶11

W.P.(C) 13506/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 18/09/2026 at 11:38:06

¶15

Notification has been issued by the Government of India though under Section 11(g) of the Act, it is the Commission constituted under Section 3 of the Act, which is empowered to prescribe for such eligibility criteria for admission to Optometry Course. His submission, thus, is that the Impugned Notification implementing certain changes in the eligibility criteria for admission to the Optometry Course has been issued by the Central Government without consultation with the Commission and, therefore, it is without jurisdiction.

¶16

Learned Counsel representing the Respondents, however, stated that the Impugned Notification has in fact been issued by the Commission itself and, therefore, the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is misconceived. 5. When we peruse the Impugned Notification, what we find is that it has been issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission. We also notice that earlier competency-based curriculum for Optometry Course was released by the Commission on 24.04.2025, in which certain changes were affected vide corrigendum dated 29.10.2025. The Impugned Notification also reveals that it has been issued by the Secretary of the Commission and only effects certain changes in the eligibility criteria for admission to the Optometry Course.

¶17

Under Section 11 of the Act various functions have been assigned to the Commission including the function relating to providing the allied and healthcare qualifications to be obtained by allied and healthcare professionals, including the name of the course, entry criteria, duration and such other particulars as may be specified by the Regulations. The said provision does not require consultation with the Central Government.

¶18

W.P.(C) 13506/2026

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 18/09/2026 at 11:38:06

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show any other provision in the Act, where consultation is required to be made by the Commission with the Central Government for the purposes of issuing the eligibility criteria for admission to the Optometry Course, which comes within its jurisdiction.

¶23

Accordingly, the Petition, in our considered opinion, does not contain any good ground, which is hereby dismissed.

¶24

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶25

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶26

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/sms

¶27

W.P.(C) 13506/2026

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

This is a digitally signed order. 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 18/09/2026 at 11:38:06

Ajeet Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Broadcasting Foundation Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Dr Manish Kamra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mursaleen Vs Lt Governor and Ors.

Maa Mundeshwari School of Medicine Private Limited & Anr. Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Pathak Vs Unioon of India & Ors.

Mueenzafar Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar