Dismissed¶85

T.Varun v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC7 Nov 2025WP/43091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NEET UG Counselling 2025 - MCC All India Quota (Deemed University) - filtering out joined AIQ candidates - DGHS notice dated 28.10.2025 - Tamil Nadu State Medical Counselling Third Round extension - Notification No.40/SCS1(1)/2025 - provisional allotment ACS Medical College Chennai - Rs.25 Lakhs vs Rs.15 Lakhs tuition fee comparison (St. Peters Medical College, Hosur) - Article 226 Constitution of India - Shubhankar Patnaik v. K. Ramesh Reddy - Madras High Court WP No. 43091 of 2025 - writ dismissed, no merits, no costs.

What did the court decide?

A litigant cannot invoke Article 226 merely because events did not unfold as anticipated; the authorities' decision to extend the counselling period cannot be branded illegal or unconstitutional solely because it did not work to the petitioner's advantage. ¶77

T.Varun Vs the Member Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶85

Issue for consideration

Whether the notification(s) issued by the 2nd respondent dated 25.10.2025/01.11.2025 extending the State counselling timeline and excluding AIQ (MCC Deemed Universities) joined candidates from the Third Round of Tamil Nadu State Medical Counselling is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶77

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's grievance, at best, amounts to sheer bad luck and does not give rise to a cause of action to challenge the notification issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶84

Key takeaways

There were valid reasons for the extension of time, namely the DGHS/MCC notice dated 28.10.2025 requiring state counselling authorities to weed out candidates who had already joined All India Quota Round-3 seats, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Shubhankar Patnaik; the extension therefore stood explained.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) dismissed by the Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh J.). The petitioner, provisionally allotted and admitted to ACS Medical College under the MC All India Quota (Deemed University) Counselling, challenged the 2nd respondent's notification extending registration/choice-locking for the Third Round of Tamil Nadu State Medical Counselling 2025-2026 and excluding candidates who had joined AIQ (MCC Deemed University) seats. The Court held that the extension, made pursuant to the DGHS notice dated 28.10.2025 implementing the Supreme Court's directions in Shubhankar Patnaik v. K. Ramesh Reddy (filtering out joined AIQ candidates), was not illegal or unconstitutional merely because it defeated the petitioner's expectations; the grievance amounted to sheer bad luck and furnished no cause of action under Article 226. Writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected WMP closed.

¶1

1/10

¶2

WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 07-11-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶7

WP No. 43091 of 2025 and WMP No. 48243 of 2025

T.Varun

Petitioner(s)

The Member Secretary Medical Counselling Committee(MCC), Directorate General of Health Services(DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011

¶12

2.The Secretary Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Notification No.40/SCS1(1)/2025 issued by the 2nd respondent herein in so far as curtailing

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

2/10 WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶17

the writ petitioner from participating in the State Medical counselling conducted by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially seeking for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in Round 4 of the Tamilnadu State Medical Counselling 2025-2026, without disqualifying the petitioner based on the provisional allotment and joining of ACS college under the MC All India Quota (Deemed University) Counselling.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.S. Pandiyaraj

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Muralitharan Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Ms.M.Sneha Special Counsel for R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for a declaration to declare the notification dated 25.10.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary

¶22

and unconstitutional and consequently for a direction to the 2nd respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in Round 4 of the Tamil Nadu State Medical

¶23

Counselling 2025-2026 without disqualifying the petitioner bansned on the

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

3/10 WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶26

provisional allotment and joining of ACS College under the MC All India Quota (Deemed University) Counselling.

¶27

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it is brought to the

¶28

notice of this Court that the Notice dated 28.10.2025 was issued by the Government of India, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted

¶29

hereunder:

¶30

As per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition No. 289 of 2022 in W.P No. 223 of 2022 Shubhankar Patnaik Vs. K. Ramesh Reddy & Ors. the filtering out of joined All India Quota candidates is mandatory in NEET UG Counselling.

¶31

In view of above, it is informed that the result of Round-3 of UG Counselling 2025 conducted by MCC has already been published and there is no provision of resignation in this round. Hence, all state counselling authorities are requested to weed out

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

4/10 WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶34

the joined candidates of AIQ Round-3 before seat processing of Round-3 of state counselling so that candidates already holding a

¶35

seat in AIQ are not allotted any seat through state counselling.

¶36

State counselling authorities can download the list of joined

¶37

candidates from the data sharing portal of MCC after 1st November 2025.

¶38

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the results of the MCC

¶39

Counselling was released on 20.10.2025, where the petitioner was provisionally

¶40

allotted a seat at ACS Medical College, Chennai. The petitioner had also

¶41

registered for the Tamil Nadu State Counselling, in which it was earlier informed that the candidates can register for Third Round till 05.00 PM on 12.10.2025 and can fill their choices and lock their choices from 05.00 PM on 13.10.2025 to 05.00 PM on 16.10.2025. However, the 2nd respondent further modified the counselling schedule by allowing the candidates to fill and lock

¶42

their choices till 05.00 PM on 29.10.2025. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent again issued a Notification dated 25.10.2025 and extended the registration date up to

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/10

¶45

WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶46

29.10.2025 and allowed the candidates to lock their choices until 05.00 PM of

¶47

01.11.2025. This Notification also stated that the candidates who have joined

¶48

under the All India Quota (MCC Deemed Universities) would not be eligible for

¶49

the Third Round of Tamil Nadu Counselling.

¶50

4.According to the petitioner, as per the bulletin & Counselling Scheme

¶51

issued by the 1st respondent, this petitioner is required to make a well-informed and calculated decision regarding the continuation in the Third Round of Counselling. This is because, as per the scheme a candidate who joins in the Third Round shall not be permitted to resign and participate in any subsequent counselling including the State or All India Stray Vacancy Rounds.

¶52

5.The petitioner's actual grievance is against the impugned notification of

¶53

the 2nd respondent dated 01.11.2025, which extended the State Counselling and

¶54

thereby, took away the rights of the petitioner's chance to take a wise decision

¶55

and the petitioner was forced to accept the seat in the management quota in a

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

6/10 WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶58

Deemed University, whereas the candidates who have scored lesser marks than

¶59

the petitioner have gotten an opportunity to study in better State Government

¶60

quota medical colleges where the fees are relatively very less.

¶61

6.In view of the above, the case of the petitioner is that due to this sudden

¶62

extension and the conflicting timeline between the 1st and 2nd respondents, the

¶63

petitioner was automatically eliminated from participating in the Third Round

¶64

of Counselling, even though the petitioner had received only a provisional

¶65

allotment. As a result, the petitioner is compelled to pay an excessive tuition fee

¶66

of Rs.25 Lakhs at ACS Medical College and whereas, the other candidates who

¶67

secured lower NEET scores have been allotted seats in St. Peters Medical College, Hosur under Tamil Nadu Counselling, where the Tuition Fee is only Rs.15 Lakhs. Hence, the petitioner alleged that there is inconsistent and

¶68

arbitrary action on the part of the respondents which has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

7/10

¶71

WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶72

7.The reason for such extension of time has been explained in the notice

¶73

that has been produced before this Court and which has been extracted supra .

¶74

8.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner cannot assume that

¶75

the entire system has ganged up and is acting against the petitioner. There may

¶76

be many reasons for the authorities to take the decision to extend the time

¶77

period and just because that did not workout in the way the petitioner had anticipated, that by itself will not render the notification as illegal or unconstitutional. A litigant cannot be permitted to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India just because things did not move in the

¶78

manner in which the petitioner had anticipated. Sometimes, the quirk of fate

¶79

defies certain anticipations which we make in the present circumstances.

¶80

9.The grievance expressed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, at

¶81

the best, can be termed to be a sheer bad luck for the petitioner and that will not

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

8/10 WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶84

give any cause of action for the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court and challenge the notification issued by the 2nd respondent.

¶85

10.This Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶86

07-11-2025

¶87

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssr

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9/10

WP No. 43091 of 2025

The Member Secretary Medical Counselling Committee(MCC), Directorate General of Health Services(DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011

¶93

2.The Secretary Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶95

10/10

¶96

WP No. 43091 of 2025

¶97

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

¶98

ssr