The Full Bench judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka on 05 December 2025 in WP No. 31934 of 2025 and connected matters addresses one of the most recurring fault lines in medical admissions litigation: how far the courts can stretch counselling processes in the name of equity without compromising merit, certainty, and regulatory discipline.
This decision does not merely dispose of a batch of writ petitions; it settles a judicial disagreement within the Court itself and sends a clear signal to candidates, counselling authorities, and institutions alike, medical admissions cannot be converted into an endless exercise of adjustment and accommodation.
Background
The petitioners before the Court were not unsuccessful candidates. On the contrary, the Full Bench records at the outset:
“The petitioners have successfully participated in the qualifying examinations of the Undergraduate – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test – 2025 [NEET (UG)] for admission to the MBBS course… and they have secured seats for MBBS course either in the first or the second selection round seat allotment conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority.”
Despite having already secured MBBS seats — and in many cases having joined the allotted colleges, the petitioners approached the Court seeking a direction to permit them to participate in the third selection round (mop-up round) for what were described as “vacant seats” or “consequential vacancies”.
The immediate trigger was the Provisional List dated 24.10.2025, by which the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) excluded these petitioners from participation in the later stages of the third round.
A Divided Bench and the Need for Authoritative Resolution
When these petitions first came up, a Division Bench of the High Court delivered two conflicting judgments on 19.11.2025.
One view, taken by Justice Jayant Banerji, set aside the provisional list and directed KEA to redo the third round strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of UP v. Bhavna Tiwari. The other view, expressed by Justice K.V. Aravind, dismissed the petitions and emphasised the need to conclude counselling expeditiously.
This divergence necessitated the constitution of a Full Bench, which framed the controversy not merely as a dispute over seats, but as a question of principle governing counselling itself.
Regulatory Framework: GMER 2023 and Its Limits
A significant portion of the judgment is devoted to tracing the statutory and regulatory backdrop, particularly the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (GMER-23) framed under the National Medical Commission Act.
The Court noted that Regulation 17 of GMER-23, including its provisos and explanation, governs the timing and manner of admissions and increases in seat strength. However, the crucial question was whether Regulation 17 could be invoked selectively or retrospectively to unsettle an ongoing counselling process.
The Full Bench rejected such an approach. It observed that counselling is conducted under bulletins, schedules, and conditions known in advance, and candidates act upon them with binding consequences.
The Counselling Process: Choices Have Consequences
The judgment painstakingly narrates the multi-stage counselling process, mock allotments, first round, second round, resumed second round, and finally the third (mop-up) round.
A key feature of the KEA process, repeatedly emphasised by the Court, is the choice system. Candidates are required to consciously select from four options after allotment.
As recorded in the judgment, these include:
“Choice No.1. The candidate… is satisfied with the seat allotted and will not participate further.”
“Choice No.2. The candidate… will keep the seat allotted and move to the next round…”
Once such choices are exercised and acted upon, including joining the college, the Court held that the relationship between the candidate and the system attains a degree of finality.
Addition of Seats: Administrative Necessity, Not a Fresh Right
One of the strongest arguments advanced by the petitioners was that additional seats (443 seats) were introduced during the third round, and therefore, they too should be allowed to compete for the consequential vacancies that arose thereafter.
The Full Bench acknowledged the factual position that seats were indeed added. However, it decisively rejected the idea that every addition of seats reopens the entire counselling universe.
The Court noted that permitting already-admitted candidates to endlessly chase better options would:
- Disrupt settled admissions
- Penalise candidates lower in the merit list who were waiting for vacancies
- Make counselling “opaque and indeterminate”
The Court echoed Supreme Court jurisprudence that merit does not operate in isolation from procedure and time.
Merit vs Endless Upgradation: Drawing the Line
A critical contribution of this judgment is its nuanced understanding of merit. The Court did not dilute merit; rather, it protected it within a structured process.
The judgment refers to the principle that:
“There must be triumph based on merits and therefore the less meritorious cannot be entitled to better seats.”
But it immediately balances this by recognising that merit must be assessed within the framework of a defined counselling round. Once a candidate has secured and accepted a seat, merit cannot be used as a perpetual lever to unsettle others.
In this context, the Court distinguished Bhavna Tiwari, clarifying that its ratio cannot be mechanically applied to every scenario involving additional seats or later rounds.
Public Interest and Institutional Stability
Beyond individual claims, the Full Bench placed considerable emphasis on public interest.
It reminded that medical education is not merely a private contest for better colleges but is intimately connected to:
- Academic calendars
- Hospital functioning
- Public health needs
Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that:
“The process of admission, especially in medical courses, cannot be endless and it must end at a particular point of time.”
Allowing continuous reshuffling would harm not only institutions but also students who require certainty to commence their academic and clinical training.
The Final Conclusion
Ultimately, the Full Bench upheld the view that candidates who have already secured and joined MBBS seats in earlier rounds do not have a vested right to participate in subsequent rounds for consequential vacancies, merely because additional seats were introduced.
The petitions were dismissed, and the KEA was permitted to proceed with completing the counselling process within the prescribed timelines.
Imprtance of This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for several reasons:
- It restores discipline and predictability to NEET counselling
- It curtails the growing tendency of post-allotment litigation
- It clarifies that equity cannot override structured merit processes
- It strengthens the authority of counselling bulletins and declared conditions
For advocates, the judgment serves as a reminder that courts are increasingly reluctant to interfere once candidates have knowingly exercised options and accepted seats.
Closing Note
The Full Bench has struck a careful balance — not by denying merit, but by anchoring merit to procedure, timelines, and finality. In doing so, it has reinforced a principle that medical admissions desperately need today:
Certainty is as essential to justice as opportunity.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
WP 31934.25 FULL BENCH_05122025 (1)
