As per case facts, multiple petitions arose challenging domicile/residence-based reservation in NEET PG admissions for Chandigarh. The High Court in an earlier "Shrey Goel" judgment struck down such reservations, a ... decision upheld by the Supreme Court, declaring residence-based reservation impermissible for PG medical courses. The Supreme Court protected only students already admitted and pursuing or having completed their courses under the old rules. Despite this, the UT Administration sought clarification from the Supreme Court on filling remaining seats, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the UT Administration converted vacant domicile-based quota seats to Institutional Preference Pool seats. The question arose whether the petitioner, who surrendered an allotted seat, was protected by the Supreme Court's judgment, and if the UT Administration could convert the balance seats for third counselling to Institutional Preference Pool. Finally, the High Court held that the petitioner was not protected as he voluntarily surrendered his seat. It clarified that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the UT Administration's clarification request implies a refusal to allow specific directions for filling vacant seats. The High Court directed the UT Administration to conduct admissions in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment and its prior orders, dismissing the lead petition.