Disposed¶39

Dr Venkatesh Ramanand Bhat v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC5 May 2026W.P.(C)/5923/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NEET SS 2025 counselling; Round 1 seat joined without upgradation; Round 2 participation; newly added DM/M.Ch. super-specialty seats and institutes; notice dated 10.04.2026 excluding non-upgradation candidates; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; petition treated as representation to MCC/respondent No. 4; detailed speaking order within one week; personal hearing; liberty to revive or file fresh petition; fair competition in counselling; DrNB Cardiology SAIFEE Hospital Mumbai; Delhi High Court; Jasmeet Singh J.; disposed 05.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by treating it as a representation to respondent No. 4 (MCC); respondent No. 4 to decide and pass a detailed speaking order within one week after a personal hearing; petitioner at liberty to revive/file a fresh petition if aggrieved. ¶39

Dr Venkatesh Ramanand Bhat Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who joined his allotted Round 1 seat in NEET SS 2025 counselling without opting for upgradation, is entitled to participate in Round 2 counselling in view of the new Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats and institutes added after completion of Round 1, and whether the notice dated 10.04.2026 excluding such candidates should be quashed.

¶17

Court's answer

Prima facie there is substance in the petitioner's submissions; the petitioner should be entitled to exercise his option freely and in a transparent manner to ensure fair competition in examinations of such immense importance. (Prima facie view only; the substantive issue was left to respondent No. 4.)

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The petition is treated as a representation to respondent No. 4, which shall pass an appropriate (detailed speaking) order within one week after duly affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing/personal hearing.

¶38

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to revive the petition or file a fresh petition if aggrieved by the speaking order passed by respondent No. 4.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J., 05.05.2026) disposed of W.P.(C) 5923/2026 filed by a doctor who joined a DrNB (Cardiology) seat at SAIFEE Hospital, Mumbai in Round 1 of NEET SS 2025 counselling without opting for upgradation, and who sought participation in Round 2 after new Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats and institutes were added post-Round 1, challenging the notice dated 10.04.2026 excluding candidates who had not opted for upgradation. Observing prima facie substance in the plea that a candidate should be able to exercise options freely and transparently to ensure fair competition, the Court accepted respondent No. 4's (MCC) offer and directed that the petition be treated as a representation, to be decided by a detailed speaking order within one week after a personal hearing, with liberty to revive the petition or file a fresh petition if aggrieved. The substantive merits were left open to respondent No. 4.

¶1

$~100

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5923/2026&CM APPL. 29080/2026 DR VENKATESH RAMANAND BHAT

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kirtika Gupta and Mr. Ishan Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. T. Singhdev (Adv), Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty (Adv), Ms. Anum Hussain (Adv), Mr. Tanishq Srivastava (Adv), Ms. Yamini Singh (Adv) for R2 Mr. Waize Ali Noor Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma Adv. Mr. Zillur Rahman Adv. for R3 Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Khyaati Bansal, Advs for MCC/R4

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 05.05.2026

¶9

CM APPL. 29081/2026

¶10

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 5923/2026

¶13

This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶14

“A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner, who was allotted seats in Round 1 of NEET SS Counselling and had joined/reported

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 12/05/2026 at 12:58:05

¶17

to their allotted institutes without opting for “upgradation,” to participate in Round 2 counselling, in view of the subsequent addition of new Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats and institutes after completion of Round 1.

¶18

B. Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 10.04.2026 to the extent whereby the Respondents have excluded such candidates/Petitioner from Round 2 counselling solely on the ground that they did not opt for upgradation during Round 1, at a time when the newly added seats/institutes were not available for consideration.

¶19

C. Consequently, direct Respondents to reopen/allow fresh choice filling for Round 2 of All India Counselling for NEET-SS 2025 for the Petitioner and all similarly situated candidates, enabling them to exercise their option for the newly added seats/institutes strictly on the basis of All India Merit

¶20

D. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to conduct an additional/special counselling round for such newly added seats/institutes, permitting participation of all eligible candidates including those who had already joined seats in Round 1 but were denied an opportunity to opt for upgrade due to non-disclosure/non-availability of such seats at the relevant time in the event Round 2 counselling is completed or results are declared prior to adjudication of the present petition.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 12/05/2026 at 12:58:05

¶23

E. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondents to conduct Round 2 of the counselling in NEET SS 2025 by including the petitioner, and for any another additional round of counselling whenever announced for NEET SS 2025 the petitioner should be included even if the results are to be declared before or after or during the pendency of the present case. . . .”

¶24

¶25

For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.

¶26

Mr. Singhdev, Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Ms. Kaushik, learned counsels accept notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

¶27

There is nobody appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 today, however, the matter is being taken up for hearing.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a doctor holding MD in respiratory medicine. He appeared for the NEET SS 2025 exam and participated in round 1^st of the counselling wherein he was allotted a seat at DrNB (Cardiology), SAIFEE Hospital in Mumbai.

¶29

However, prior to commencement of the 2^nd round counselling, the petitioner did not opt for upgradation as he was satisfied with the seat matrix allotted to him at that point in time.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that after the 1^st round of counselling and prior to the 2^nd round of counselling, several new seats and institutes have been added which has materially altered the competitive landscape.

¶31

The petitioner is eligible and desirous of participating in this round for the allotment of seats, which are now available in the 2^nd round of counselling. However, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to

¶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 12/05/2026 at 12:58:05

¶34

modify/refill his choices on the sole ground of not opting for upgradation in the 1^st round.

¶35

Hence, to my mind, prima facie there is substance in the submissions of the petitioner as the petitioner should be entitled to exercise his option freely and in a transparent manner to ensure fair competition in examinations of such an immense importance.

¶36

Ms. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, states that in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the present petition may be directed to be treated as a representation to the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 will duly decide and pass a detailed speaking order after considering the case of the petitioner.

¶37

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said course of action is acceptable to the petitioner.

¶38

For the said reasons, it is directed that the present petition shall be treated as a representation, and an appropriate order shall be passed within 1 week from today after duly affording an opportunity of hearing/personal hearing to the petitioner. The appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondent No. 4 in this regard to resolve the matter.

¶39

With these directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶40

The petitioner is at liberty to revive the petition/file a fresh petition, if aggrieved by the speaking order passed by the respondent No. 4.

¶41

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶42

MAY 5, 2026 / (MS)

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 12/05/2026 at 12:58:05

Dr Venkatesh Ramanand Bhat v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Venkatesh Ramanand Bhat v. Union of India & 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

Shridhar Vyas and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Insp/Exe Ranbir Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jugal Pratap Vs Delhi Skill and Enterpreneurship University & Ors.

Mohd Dilshad Vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.

Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nabard Consultancy Services Private Limited & Anr.

Jay Bajarangbali Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

University Grants Commission & Anr. Vs Rajesh Anand & Anr.

Ravi Chilkuri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shridhar Vyas and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Jugal Pratap Vs Delhi Skill and Enterpreneurship University & Ors.

Mazin C P and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Devanshu Mishra Vs University of Delhi through Its Vice-Chancellor & Ors.

Shayan Amir Vs Cbse & Ors.

Amity International School and Anr. Vs the Director, Directorate of Education and Anr.