Page 1 of 17

Serial No. 02

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 8 of 2026 Date of Hearing: 05.06.2026

Date of Decision: 28.07.2026

Shri. Vaskar Shil

S/o Shri. Mohan Basi Shil :::Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Union of India

Through Ministry of AYUSH

Ayush Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex

INA, New Delhi – 110023

2.The National Commission for Homeopathy

Through its Secretary

C/o Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa

Avum Homeopathy Anusandhan Bhavan,

No. 61-65 Institutional Area, Opp. D. Block

Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058

3.The Homeopathy Education Board,

Through its President

C/o Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa

Avum Homeopathy Anusandhan Bhavan,

No. 61-65 Institutional Area, Opp. D. Block

Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058

4.The Ayush Admissions Central Counselling

Committee (AACCC)

National Commission for Indian System of Medicine

Represented by its Director, Dhanwantri Bhawan,

Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi – 110026

Page 2 of 17

5.The North Eastern Hill University

Through its Registrar

Mawkynroh – Umshing

Shillong – 793022, East Khasi Hills

District, Meghalaya

6.The North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda

and Homeopathy

through its Director, Mawdiangdiang,

Shillong – 793018, Meghalaya

7.The Director, North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda

and Homeopathy, Mawdiangdiang, Shillong – 793018

Meghalaya

8.The Deputy Director,

North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy,

Mawdiangdiang, Shillong – 793018, Meghalaya

9.The Nodal Officer,

North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy,

Mawdiangdiang, Shillong- 793018, Meghalaya

10.Miss Ankita Kaushik

D/o Shri. Bhupendra Nath Sarma,

C/o North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and

Homeopathy, Mawdiangdiang, Shillong-793018

Meghalaya :::Respondents

Page 3 of 17

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with

Ms. C. Jala, Adv. (For R 1-4, 6- 9)

Mr. S. Sen, SC NEHU with

Ms. S. Dhar, Adv. (For R 5).

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the

Post Graduate course of MD (Homeopathy) in the North Eastern Institute

of Ayurveda and Homeopathy (NEIAH) and had featured at Serial No. 1,

in the merit list. The candidature of the petitioner however, was rejected

due to his belated reporting for admission. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner had preferred WP(C) No. 649 of 2025, before this Court for

creation of a supernumerary seat in his favour. By judgment dated

17.12.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation

before the respondent No. 6, who in turn was directed to forward the same

Page 4 of 17

to the National Commission for Homeopathy to explore the possibility of

creation of a supernumerary seat. The petitioner then accordingly submitted

a representation on 22.12.2025, before the respondent No. 6, which by

letter dated 08.01.2026, denied any relief on the ground that the admission

process for the academic year 2025-26, was already over on 22.12.2025.

2. However, 5(five) days thereafter, the National Commission for

Homeopathy issued a notification dated 13.01.2026, extending the cut-

off/last date to 23.01.2026, for admission to the PG course in Homeopathy

for the academic year 2025-26. The petitioner’s case is that the proposal to

extend the last date of admission till 23.01.2026, was within the knowledge

of the respondents on being contemplated by the Respondent Board and

Commission well before the representation was rejected, and as such, the

action of the respondents was highly arbitrary. A further fact that is

important to note is that, the respondents No. 1-4 and 6-9, in their affidavit

in the present case, had revealed that vide a letter dated 16.06.2025, the

National Commission for Homeopathy had granted the Respondent

Institute provisional permission with an intake capacity of 63(sixty-three)

seats for the UG course and 8(eight) seats for the PG course, but the

institute had advertised only 2(two) PG seats. As such, the petitioner has

prayed for admission into the next academic session on the basis of the

marks secured in the AIAPGET exams held in July, 2025.

Page 5 of 17

3. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted

that the rejection of the petitioner’s representation was solely on the ground

that the admission process had already concluded, whereas within days of

the rejection, the Ministry of AYUSH had extended the admission cut-off

date by 1(one) month. Further he submits, it has emerged from the

respondent affidavit itself that though the National Commission for

Homeopathy had sanctioned 8(eight) PG seats, the respondent Institute had

advertised only 2(two) seats, a material fact that was deliberately withheld

in the earlier proceedings, inasmuch as, had this Court been informed of the

actual sanctioned intake capacity, it would not have directed exploration

for creation of a supernumerary seat, as vacant sanction capacity was

already existed.

4. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

therefore are that the respondent Institute had suppressed material facts

regarding the sanctioned intake capacity, had failed to faithfully implement

this Court’s earlier direction, and had arbitrarily rejected the representation,

despite the extension of the admission deadline, which has resulted in the

denial of admission through an unfair and unreasonable administrative

action. Learned counsel submits that as the 2025-26 academic session has

substantially progressed, the respondents in the circumstances, be directed

to afford admission to the petitioner, in the next academic session based on

Page 6 of 17

his AIAPGET 2025 score. In support of his submissions, the learned

counsel has placed reliance on the case of S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465, which he submits

has recognised the powers of Courts to mould relief by directing admission

in a subsequent academic year, in a case where a meritorious candidate has

been illegally denied admission. Reliance has also been placed in the cases

of Dr. Shireen Dkhar vs. State of Meghalaya reported in 2024 SCC

OnLine Megh 1088, and Shreya Kumari Tirkey vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Ors. passed in SLP (Civil) No. 27139 of 2024, to underline

and emphasise that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights,

and that equitable relief may be granted where authorities have acted

unfairly.

5. With regard to the judgments placed by the respondents, learned

counsel submits that the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu

Singh & Ors., reflects older jurisprudence, while Chandigarh

Administration & Anr. vs. Jasmine Kaur & Ors., has been held to no

longer represent good law, as by a larger bench the Supreme Court in the

case of S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.(supra),

admission to the next academic year was specifically permitted. The other

case cited by the respondents that is Sadhana Yadav vs. Union of India &

Ors., he submits, is factually completely dissimilar, as in the instant case,

Page 7 of 17

there exists an entirely unique set of facts, wherein the respondent Institute

suppressed and failed to fairly disclose its already existing intake capacity

for the PG course, resulting in this Court’s direction for exploring the

possibility of creation of a supernumerary seat. The learned counsel in

conclusion has prayed that directions be issued for grant of admission to

the next academic session on the strength of his AIAPGET 2025 score, as a

one-time equitable measure to remedy the injustice caused to the petitioner.

6. In reply, Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. C. Jala,

learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-4 and 6-9, has submitted that the

entire situation is the creation of the petitioner himself, who had failed to

report on time for admission, which resulted in the rejection of his

candidature. The petitioner he submits, was fully aware of the reporting

date and time fixed for counselling, and the reasons cited for not reporting

on time that is due to traffic congestion, delay at fuel station and

mechanical issues with the vehicle are personal circumstances, that cannot

override the admission rules. The learned DSGI has stressed that the

NEIAH prospectus expressly provides that failure to appear on the

scheduled counselling date, results in cancellation of the candidature, and

therefore the Institute had acted strictly in accordance with the prescribed

regulations.

Page 8 of 17

7. With respect to the extension of the admission cut-off date by the

National Commission for Homeopathy, it is submitted by the learned DSGI

that though the cut-off date was extended to 23.01.2026, the extension was

intended only for conducting additional grounds of counselling to fill

vacancies, and as NEIAH had already completed the admission process,

and filled all available seats, the extension did not authorise re-opening of

concluded admissions. The petitioner’s representation it is submitted, had

also been rejected before the extension on the ground that the admission

process had already concluded. The learned DSGI has also sought to

explain that though the National Commission for Homeopathy had

sanctioned 8(eight) PG seats, NEIAH had advertised only 1(one) seat

because of insufficient faculty strength and inadequate infrastructure, in

compliance with regulatory requirements.

8. The learned DSGI has also vehemently opposed the petitioner’s

alternative prayer for admission into the next academic session by relying

on the judgments of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.

reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258, Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs.

Jasmine Kaur & Ors. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521, and Sadhana Yadav

vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 196, and has

submitted that it would not be proper to issue directions to adjust students

of one academic year in any subsequent academic year, as the same would

Page 9 of 17

affect other meritorious candidates, who will be aspiring to get admission

in the subsequent years. Further it is submitted, it is an admitted fact that

the petitioner had reported late for the counselling session, and was

therefore at fault, which cannot be attributable to the respondent authority.

The relief prayed by the petitioner, he submits, can only be granted where

the authorities are at fault, whereas in the present case, the petitioner alone

was responsible for arriving late, and the seat had already been allotted to

the next academic candidate in order of merit.

9. It has also been argued by the learned DSGI, that the AIAPGET

2025 score is expressly valid only for admissions to the 2025-26 academic

session, and therefore cannot be relied upon for admission in any

subsequent academic year. The admission process he submits, was

conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations,

and the allegations that there was arbitrariness or illegality on the part of

the authorities/respondents is misplaced and incorrect. The writ petition he

contends, being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the issues that arise

for determination by this Court can be summed up as follows:

(i) Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representation on the

ground that the admission deadline had expired is sustainable,

in view of the extension of the very deadline to 23.01.2026.

Page 10 of 17

(ii) Whether the denial of admission to a highly meritorious

student belonging to OBC category only on the ground of a

marginal delay is reasonable.

(iii) Whether the petitioner can be accommodated in the next

academic session using the same AIAPGET 2025 score.

11. Before adverting to the issues and facts of the present writ petition, it

would be relevant to note that this Court in the earlier round of litigation by

order dated 17.12.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 649 of 2025, had disposed of

the case by allowing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and

directing the respondent No. 3, to take the same into consideration and also

to explore the possibility for the creation of a supernumerary seat.

Paragraph – 6 to 9, being relevant are reproduced herein below.

“6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and also on perusal of the instructions, which are

annexed at Page-46 to the writ petition, at Instruction

No. 2 thereof, it has been clearly stated as follows,

“Reporting date & time is 02.12.2025 till 10:00 am at

Seminar Hall, NEIAH (after which no one will be

allowed to report on any grounds)”. At Instruction No. 4

thereof, it has also been given that “If a candidate does

not report on the said date & time, his/her seat will be

automatically offered to the next candidate in the merit

list. No claim after due date/time will be entertained at

Page 11 of 17

any cost”. The petitioner therefore being in receipt of

the instructions, was well aware of the stipulations, to

which he was to abide by, in order to take admission in

the PG course.

7. As such in view of these instructions, this Court

cannot direct for creation of supernumerary seat,

inasmuch as, the lapses were directly attributable to the

petitioner himself. However, looking into the totality of

the circumstances, wherein an aspiring candidate has

been deprived of pursuing a PG course, for which he

had legitimately qualified, his case merits some

redressal.

8. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent No.

3, on a fresh representation being filed by the writ

petitioner shall take the same into consideration and

take appropriate steps to forward the said grievances to

the National Commission for Homeopathy to explore the

possibility of creation of a supernumerary seat, in favour

of the petitioner. This direction is being passed in view

of the fact that there is no redressal mechanism, when

such situations arise.

9. It is expected that the representation be addressed

and disposed of within a period of 4(four) weeks, from

the date of this order, and the petitioner is directed to

file the same by 22.12.2025.”

Page 12 of 17

12. It also would not be out of place to remark that in the same

judgment itself, the respondent counsel on instructions had submitted that

only 2(two) seats had been sanctioned by the Council, which however, in

view of the statement made in the present affidavit does not appear to be

the case. Para – 3, which is relevant is also reproduced herein below.

“3. When the matter was taken up on 09.12.2025, Dr. N.

Mozika, learned DSGI for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 to 5,

submitted that the instructions being clear with regard to

the reporting time for counselling, and the same also

having provided that should the candidate be absent, the

same would go to the next candidate in the merit list,

there is no scope for consideration, that too, coupled

with the fact that only 2(two) seats have been sanctioned

by the Council, which also carries a stipend of Rs.

75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand) only. He has

also submitted that the seat had already been offered

and since filled up by the next candidate in the merit list.

This Court considering the fact that the delay was

marginal, had then enquired from the respondent No. 3,

as to whether a supernumerary seat could be created to

accommodate the petitioner, and also whether the

petitioner is willing to forego the stipend.”

13. Coming back to the facts at hand, it is important to note that after

filing the fresh representation as allowed by this Court, the petitioner

Page 13 of 17

received a response on 13.01.2026, which included a letter informing that

the creation of a supernumerary seat could not be considered, apart from

stating the ground for rejection being based on the admission guidelines

issued by the AYUSH Admissions Central Counselling Committee for the

2025-26 academic year, which was over on 22.12.2025. Thus, the entire

premise for rejection or refusal by the respondents was that the

consideration could not be extended to the case of the petitioner due to the

deadline that had passed. However, the entire events took a turn, in view of

the fact that, on the very same day, the petitioner received his response that

is 13.01.2026, the respondent No. 2, had issued a new notification

announcing that the Ministry of Ayush had approved an extension of the

admission cut-off date to 23.01.2026. To the mind of the Court therefore,

the extension being in place, there should have been no impediment for the

respondent No. 3, to consider the representation of the petitioner.

14. Another aspect that merits consideration, is the fact that a pointed

statement had been made before this Court in the earlier writ petition, as to

the availability of only 2(two) sanctioned PG seats, which has been quoted

in Para - 12 above, whereas, it appears that as per a letter dated 13.06.2025,

annexed as Annexure – A, to the affidavit of the respondents filed in the

present writ petition, the intake capacity for PG course (MD) is 8(eight)

seats in 4(four) subjects. The situation of the facts therefore, as on the date

Page 14 of 17

of rejection of the petitioner’s candidature, from the discussions and

observations made hereinabove, would show that the reasons for rejection

were non-existent.

15. On the other issue with regard to the other reason for rejection of the

petitioner’s candidature on the ground of delay, firstly, this Court is to

examine as to whether strict adherence to reporting time in the instant case

can be used against the petitioner. This observation is made in view of the

fact that, the petitioner was late by about 2 minutes to reach the venue due

to traffic congestion and other factors. This fact is evidenced by the

representation made on the spot itself on 02.12.2025 (Annexure – 8 to the

writ petition). The writ petitioner’s delay cannot be held to be deliberate

nor mischievous, and on his candidature being rejected had sought

immediate redressal before the respondents, and by way of writ proceeding

before this Court. Further, the fact that the petitioner a deserving candidate

belongs to the OBC Category also cannot be ignored, and denying him the

chance to continue his degree on account of a slight procedural irregularity

would surely cause severe injustice.

16. As there is no question of the writ petitioner being accommodated in

the current academic session of 2025-26, this Court in consideration of the

facts as they pertain today, where it can safely be discerned that there has

been a large element of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in

Page 15 of 17

dealing with the case of the petitioner, would take recourse to rely upon the

decision rendered in S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh(supra), wherein at Paragraph – 13.3, it has been held as follows:

“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 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.”

Page 16 of 17

17. It would also be useful to refer to the judgment cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that is Shireen Dkhar vs. State of

Meghalaya(supra) wherein at Paragraph – 11 and 12, it has been held as

follows:

“11. In the present case, the private respondent being

more meritorious, in the considered view of this Court

deserves the same concession, that is to the moulding of

the relief and to direct for admission to be granted in

the next academic year into the MDS PG Course with

the same NEET score. It is further noted that though the

judgment refers to the admission in the MBBS Course

only, the same principle would apply to the instant case

which involves admission to Post Graduate Medical

Course.

12. It is thus ordered accordingly, that the State

respondents shall make provision for accommodating

and allocating a seat in MDS PG Course from the State

quota to the private respondent in the next academic

year 2025-2026 with the same NEET score. This order

is being passed considering the peculiar nature of the

case and to balance the equities and not to serve as a

precedent.”

18. In the totality of the circumstances therefore, and noting the fact that

the benefit of the extension of the cut-off date was not afforded to the

Page 17 of 17

petitioner, coupled with the fact that there is a sanction of 8(eight) PG seats

which would eliminate the necessity of creating a supernumerary seat, and

the nature of infraction on the part of the petitioner which though

attributable to him, is at the most only a marginal lapse, this Court is

therefore inclined to mould the relief, as prayed.

19. Accordingly, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, as a one-time relaxation and not to create any

precedent, directs the Respondent Institute to grant admission to the

petitioner in the next academic session on the basis of the marks obtained

in the AIAPGET examinations held in the month of July, 2025.

20. The writ petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya

28.07.2026

“D.Thabah-PS”