Court affirms constitutionality of GO aimed at preventing seat wastage and ensuring fairness in medical admissions, dismissing challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
In a significant ruling dated August 18, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) upheld the constitutionality of a Government Order (GO) issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh that bars candidates from participating in subsequent counseling sessions for medical admissions if they vacate a previously allotted seat. The petitioner, Rohan Yadav, who secured admission through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG-2025 but sought to improve his allotment in NEET UG-2026, challenged the GO as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 (Equality before law), 19 (Freedom to practice any profession), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
The GO, dated June 26, 2024, abolished the earlier “seat-leaving bond” penalty system and instead imposed a bar on candidates who leave their allotted medical seats before course completion from participating in the next academic session’s counseling process. The State issued this order following recommendations by the National Medical Commission and cited concerns relating to the mental health of candidates and the need to prevent wastage of medical seats.
The petitioner argued that this restriction impedes his constitutional right to pursue higher education despite his success in the competitive NEET examination. He relied on precedent from the Orissa and Bombay High Courts, which had struck down or read down similar penal provisions as unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.
The Court, however, emphasized the broader public interest and the rights of other candidates who are deprived of seats due to lapses caused by vacated seats. It noted that allowing candidates to repeatedly vacate and reattempt for better seats leads to wastage of precious medical seats that could otherwise be allocated to deserving candidates. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents, including the Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust case and the recent judgment in State of U.P. v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari, which advocated for preventing seat blocking and maximizing seat utilization during counseling rounds.
The Bench observed that the GO was issued after due consideration of all relevant factors, including mental health concerns and fairness in competitive admissions. It found the classification created by the GO based on whether a candidate vacates a seat before course completion to be reasonable and having a rational nexus to the objective of preventing seat wastage. The Court declined to interfere with the policy decision of the Government, holding that it does not violate constitutional rights but rather ensures fairness and equality among candidates.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by Rohan Yadav was dismissed, affirming the State’s authority to regulate counseling procedures to prevent seat lapses and protect the interests of all aspiring medical students.
This judgment reinforces the principle that while individual candidates have rights to education and professional opportunity, these rights may be reasonably regulated to safeguard public interest and equitable access to limited resources in competitive fields such as medical education.
Bottom Line:
Government Order (GO) debarring candidates from participating in subsequent academic session's counseling for vacating a previously allotted medical seat held to be constitutional, as it aims to prevent seat lapses and ensure fairness in the admission process.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 21; National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) regulations; Government Order dated 26.06.2024 (U.P.)
Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2964773
