SIDDHANT VIJAY AVAHANEversusSTATE MAHARASHTRA THROUGH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38209-DB
                                         1                        906.wp.14120.25.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 14120 OF 2025
                                          WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5747/2026
                                    IN WP/14120/2025

                  Siddhant Vijay Avahane,
                  Age : 24 Years, Occu.: Student,
                  R/o. Near L.I.C. Office, Civil Colony,
                  Deulgaon Raja, Tq. Deulgaon Raja,
                  Dist. Buldhana                           …   PETITIONER

                         VERSUS
             1.   State of Maharashtra
                  through Medical Education
                  Department, Mumbai.
             2.   Directorate of Medical Education and
                  Research, St. George’s Hospital
                  Compound, Mumbai – 400 001.
             3.   State Common Entrance Test (CET)
                  Cell, Government of Maharashtra,
                  through its Commissioner 8th Floor,
                  New Excelsior Building, A.K. Nayak
                  Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
             4.   Dean, Smt. Sakhubai Narayanrao Katkade
                  Medical College and Research Centre,
                  Mumbai – Nagpur Highway, At Kokamthan,
                  Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar)
                  423 601
             5.   Gorane Nilkanth Rajendra,
                  Age – Not Known, Occ : Student,
                  C/o Smt. Sakhubai Narayanrao Katkade
                  Medical College and Research Centre,
                  Mumbai – Nagpur Highway, At Kokamthan,
                  Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar)
                  423 601
             6.   Kadam Sanskruti Narayan
                  Occ : Student, R/o New Chhatrapati
                  Colony, Ladgaon Road, Vaijapur,
                  Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati
                  Sambhajinagar 423701                …  RESPONDENTS
                               2                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


                                    …
Advocate for the Petitioner : Party – in – Person
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. M.K. Goyanka
Advocate for Respondent No.3:Mr. P.D. Bachate h/f. Mr. S.G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.D. Sonkawde
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Chandrakant A. Jadhav
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. N.D. Sonavane
                                    …

              CORAM                  : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI
                                       AND
                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
              Reserved on            : 13.08.2026
              Pronounced on          : 24.08.2026


FINAL ORDER (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :


1.          The party-in-person has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following main

reliefs :

        “(1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
        and set aside the consideration and selection of the
        Respondent No.5 for the 2nd residual vacancy by the
        Respondent No.4 - College, being illegal and arbitrary and
        further appropriate order / directions may kindly be passed
        regarding this vacancy, in the interest of justice.

        (2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
        the authorities to grant admission to the Petitioner to MBBS
        course, in this Academic year, in the peculiar facts and
        circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.”


2.            The case of the petitioner is that, being desirous of seeking

admission to the MBBS course, he appeared for the NEET (UG)

Examination-2025 and successfully qualified in the said examination
                            3                              906.wp.14120.25.odt


on 14.06.2025, securing 340 marks and an All India Rank of 340844.

On 17.11.2025, Respondent No. 3, i.e. the CET Cell, conducted

counselling for filling up the vacant seats in the MBBS course in

colleges situated in the State. In view of the vacancies, Respondent No.

3 published Notice No. 27, along with the Rules and Conditions for

filling up the vacant seats in the MBBS course through the Institutional

Level Stray Vacancy Round. Accordingly, on the same day, Respondent

No. 3 published the Seat Matrix indicating the vacancies available in

the said round.

3.          Pursuant to Notice No. 27, the petitioner on 18.11.2025,

applied to Respondent No. 4 through e-mail within the stipulated

period and in the prescribed format. On 18.11.2025 itself, Respondent

No. 4–College published the Merit List of the candidates along with the

Select List comprising of two candidates on its website. However, as

those two candidates did not join, the Respondent No. 4–College, on

19.11.2025, once again published a Waiting List along with a Select

List consisting of two other candidates out of the Waiting List

published on 18.11.2025.


4.          It is further case of the petitioner that, owing to the

existence of residual vacancies and being a wait-listed candidate, he

reported to Respondent No. 4–College on 20.11.2025. Thereafter,
                             4                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


Respondent No. 4–College completed the process for filling up the

residual vacancies. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the

petitioner, Respondent No. 5, who was not even a wait-listed candidate

in the Merit Lists published by Respondent No. 4 on 18.11.2025 and

19.11.2025, was shown in the Select List, as a result of which the

petitioner has been deprived from being selected against the second

residual vacancy. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.


5.          The party-in-person submits that, when the Merit List was

published on 18.11.2025, neither the name of Respondent No.5, nor

the newly added Respondent No.6, figured in it. Respondent No.4 –

College, therefore, has committed an error in selecting Respondent

No.5, who, has not even applied either on 18.11.2025 or 19.11.2025.

He would therefore submit that, this change in Merit List amounts to

alteration in the selection process, which is not permissible in the

midst of the said process.

6.          To substantiate his submission, he has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divjot Sekhon Vs.

State of Punjab and others ; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 17, in the case of

Vansh s/o Prakash Dolas Vs. The Ministry of Education and the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others.; (2024) 3 S.C.R.

705 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Tejaswini Vs. State
                            5                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


of Maharashtra; 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 78. He, therefore, urged that the writ

petition deserves to be allowed.


7.           Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 – College

would submit that, on 18.11.2025, the college received emails from

295 candidates, out of which 249 were reflected in the regular inbox,

whereas the remaining 46 emails had been classified as ‘Spam’. The

college administration, therefore, could not verify the emails received

from those 46 candidates.       Respondent No.4 – College, eventually

published the Final Merit List of 249 candidates and Provisional Select

List of two candidates on 18.11.2025. However, those two candidates

did not report, and the same was duly acknowledged by the Selection

Committee.

8.           He would further submits that, on 19.11.2025, Respondent

No.4 discovered 47 emails in the Spam folder, whereupon the

Admission Committee       decided to include the names of those

candidates who had sent their emails on or before 18.11.2025 at 5:30

pm, in the waiting list. Accordingly, on 19.11.2025, a residual waiting

list comprising of 294 candidates was published.

9.           He would further submit that, on 20.11.2025 after

including the names of 48 candidates whose emails were found in the

updated Spam folder, a waiting list comprising of 295 candidates was
                              6                            906.wp.14120.25.odt


accordingly published. On that day, a total of six candidates were

physically present, including the petitioner. Therefore, the allegations

that the two candidates, including respondent No.5, have been

illegally selected, is devoid of any substance.

10.         He further submits that the entire selection process was

conducted in the presence of two observers deputed by respondent

No.3 – CET Cell, therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the

selection process.

11.         Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 – CET Cell would

submit that, certain      complaints were received regarding             the

Institutional Level Stray Vacancy Round and Respondent No.3 had

conducted a thorough inquiry in that regard, however, nothing

objectionable was found in the said selection process.

12.         Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 and

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 have adopted the

submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4.

13.         We have heard the party-in-person, learned AGP for the

State, and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6

at length and have perused the record.


14.         No doubt, the respondent No.4 – College had published a
                             7                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


waiting list of 249 out of 295 candidates; however, the record reveals

that respondent No.4 could not verify the mails received from 46

candidates on 18.11.2025 and therefore, their names could not be

included in the select list. The record further reveals that the

Respondent No. 5 had applied online through email on 18.11.2025 at

02:17 pm, however, his email was found in Spam folder. Likewise, two

candidates whose names were published separately in the selection list

were also amongst those candidates whose mails were found in the

Spam folder.

15.         The fact remains that the candidates including respondent

No.5 who were selected, were found to be more meritorious than the

petitioner, as the last selected candidate, i.e. respondent No.5, has

secured 405 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured 340 marks in

the NEET examination. It is not the case of the petitioner that the

candidates selected in his place were less meritorious than him. We,

therefore, find that the explanation offered by respondent No.4 –

College is plausible and quite acceptable.


16.         Admittedly the entire selection process was conducted in

the presence of two observers of CET Cell. So also in the enquiry

conducted into the complaints regarding the Institutional Stray Vacany

Round, no illegality or irregularity was found in the selection process.
                            8                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


So far as judgments relied upon by the party-in-person are concerned,

in the case of Divjot Sekhon Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the issue

before the Hon’ble Apex Court was with regard to change in admission

rules in the midst of the admission process.       It would be apt to

reproduce the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court which

read thus :

    18. It is well-settled that the Rules of the game cannot be altered
    once the game has begun. In Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation and Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors.;
    (2001) 10 SCC 51, this Court observed that "the Rules of the
    game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be
    altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the
    process of selection has commenced". The same principle was
    followed subsequently by a 3-Judge Bench in K. Manjusree v.
    State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. ; (2008) 3 SCC 512 and by a
    Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan
    High Court and Ors. ; (2025) 2 SCC 1. This principle is just as
    applicable to admission processes to educational courses as it
    would be to recruitment processes. Just as modification of
    recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment
    process has begun, it is equally illegal for an admission process to
    not be fully defined in all its contours before its commencement,
    so as to leave room for the authorities concerned to stipulate
    norms later on to suit their own interests or to permit nepotism.
    The transparency of such a process is paramount to ensure
    fairness and prevent arbitrariness.

     “32. In Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala and Ors.
     (2024) 3 SCC 799, a Constitution Bench observed as under:
                “45. The underlying basis for the application of the
         doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved
         to include the principles of good administration. Since
         citizens repose their trust in the State, the actions and
                             9                              906.wp.14120.25.odt


          policies of the State give rise to legitimate expectations that
          the State will adhere to its assurance or past practice by
          acting in a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner.
          The principles of good administration require that the
          decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of
          consistency, transparency and predictability to avoid being
          regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”


17.          Similarly, so far as the judgment in the case of Vansh s/o

Prakash Dolas (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to cancellation

of MBBS admission. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads

thus :

      “27. This Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra
      Pradesh and Ors. ; (2017) 4 SCC 516 examined the issue of
      wrongful denial of admission in a medical course, and
      propounded the theory of 'restitutive justice' by holding as
      below:-

         “13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove,
         a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an
         admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the
         authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the
         Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious
         candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we
         answer the reference as under:

          13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached
          the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the
          question is with respect to the admission in medical course all
          the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of
          the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.

          13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that
          there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the
          candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously
                   10                             906.wp.14120.25.odt


without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the
authorities and/or there is apparent breach of Rules and
Regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant
of admission which would violate the right of equality and
equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time
Schedule prescribed - 30th September, is over, to do the
complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances
and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same
year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not
be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be
ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from
30th September, i.e., cut off date and under no circumstances,
the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond
30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also
pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate
who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if
the admission would have been given to a more meritorious
candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not
have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper,
however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student
whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very
academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the
authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the Rules and
Regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the
students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and
such candidate/student has approached the court at the
earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief
and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in
the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by
directing to increase in the number of seats as may be
considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an
eventuality and if it is found that the management was at
fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious
                             11                           906.wp.14120.25.odt


          candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the
          number of seats in the management quota of that year,
          meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied
          admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic
          year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

          13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional
          remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
          Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the
          compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no
          fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who
          could not be granted any relief of admission in the same
          academic year.

          13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to
          Admission in MBBS Course only and we have not dealt with
          post graduate medical course.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)


18.         The aforesaid judgments in our considered view would not

be applicable to the case in hand. As far as the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tejaswini Vs. State of

Maharashtra (supra) is concerned, in that case, the Management had

admitted a student who was less meritorious than the petitioner

therein, and it is in this context that this Court directed the

Management to pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Lakh only) to her. We find that, even the said judgment, being

distinguishable on facts, does not render any assistance to the

petitioner in the present case.

19.         In view of foregoing discussion, we are convinced that
                            12                              906.wp.14120.25.odt


there was no illegality or irregularity committed by respondent No. 4 -

College in conducting the admission process at the stage of filling up

the residual vacancies. We do not find any substance in the writ

petition. The same sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The

pending civil application also stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                  ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


habeeb/Aj