High Courts cannot order conduct of counselling beyond admission deadline even if medical seats go vacant: Madras HC

Even if medical seats go vacant, either because of arbitrary inaction on the part of the officials concerned or on account of any other reason, a High Court cannot issue a direction for conduct of counselling to fill up those seats beyond the cut-off date fixed for admissions every year, the Madras High Court has held.

The first Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held so while setting aside a September 18, 2025 order passed by a judge who had directed the central medical counselling committee to conduct a mop up counselling to fill up vacant super specialty seats in Tamil Nadu.

Allowing a writ appeal preferred by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Bench agreed with Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan that the judge ought not to have issued such a direction after the cut-off date for admissions in super specialty courses had ended on August 31, 2025.

The single judge had passed the orders while allowing a joint writ petition filed by three doctors holding post graduate degrees. They had contended many valuable super specialty course seats had remained vacant in Tamil Nadu because of lack of proper coordination between central and State officials to fill them up.

However, the Division Bench pointed out the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan versus Others (2021) had clearly stated medical admission regulations, which lay down strict timelines for holding various rounds of counselling and making the admissions, bear the imprimatur (authoritative approval) of the top court.

“If that be the observation of the apex court, we are of the view that, irrespective of whether the seats remain unfilled on account of arbitrary inaction on the part of the official respondents or not, once the last date of admission, i.e. August 31, 2025 was over, the writ petitioners could not be granted relief by this court and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed,” the Chief Justice wrote for the Bench.

Though the single judge had relied upon an order passed by the Supreme Court in Kevin Joy and others versus Government of India (2023) wherein the top court had permitted conduct of counselling and admission even beyond the cut-off date, the Division Bench said, in that case, the top court had also made it clear in unequivocal terms its direction should not be cited as a precedent.

Only Supreme Court can make exception

Agreeing with Mr. Sundaresan that permitting counselling even beyond the cut-off date for medical admissions would open up a pandora’s box, the Division Bench said, only the Supreme Court, and not the High Courts, could carve out exceptions in certain cases.

On the contention of the three doctors that the High Court too, under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, could pass orders to prevent aribitrariness and illegalities, the Chief Justice said, it was beyond any pale of dispute that the founding fathers of the Constitution placed no limitation or fetters on the powers of the High Court under Article 226, except self imposed limitations.

“The arm of the High Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. Further, the court, as sentinal on the qui vive (lookout) is to mete out justice in given facts… However, the schedule of counselling and the last date of admission is prescribed by way of regulations, which have the force of law. In any case, if any illegality in the process of counselling and admission is found, it could be corrected by the writ court, provided the last date of admission is not over,” the Bench wrote.

The Bench concluded its verdict stating: “In those cases where the last date of admission is over, it is faitaccompli and in view of order passed by the apex court in various cases, referred supra, the party has to be left to work out the remedy by approaching the apex court.”