2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 1

reportable

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026

Nishita Laishram, aged about 18 years, D/o Laishram Noren

Singh, resident of Yumnam Huidrom Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.

Wangoi, District Imphal West, Manipur-795009.

…... Petitioner/s

- Versus -

1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner (Health & FW),

Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Mantripukhri,

P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East,

Manipur-795002.

2. The Director of Medical Education, Government of Manipur,

Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795004.

3. The Joint Secretary (Health & FW.), Government of Manipur,

Secretariat Building, P.O & P.S, Imphal, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795001.

4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Shija Academy of

Health Sciences, Langol, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West

District, Manipur-795004.

5. The Proprietor, NETCOM Cyber Cafe, Keishampat, Keisam

Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-

795001.

........Respondent/s

with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026

Nishita Laishram, aged about 18 years, D/o Laishram Noren

Singh, resident of Yumnam Huidrom Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.

Wangoi, District Imphal West, Manipur-795009.

…... Applicant/s

- Versus -

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 2

1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner (Health & FW),

Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Mantripukhri,

P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East,

Manipur-795002.

2. The Director of Medical Education, Government of Manipur,

Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795004.

3. The Joint Secretary (Health & FW.), Government of Manipur,

Secretariat Building, P.O & P.S, Imphal, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795001.

4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Shija Academy of

Health Sciences, Langol, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West

District, Manipur-795004.

5. The Proprietor, NETCOM Cyber Cafe, Keishampat, Keisam

Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-

795001.

........Respondent/s

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the petitioners :: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Adv. assisted

by Mr. S. Johnson, Adv.

For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, A.G. assisted by Ms.

Sanya Shangari, Adv.; Mr. HS.

Paonam, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. S.

Gunabanta, Adv.

Date of Hearing :: 24.09.2026

Date of Order :: 25.09.2026

O R D E R (CAV)

[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted

by Mr. S. Johnson, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner; Mr. Lenin

Hijam, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sanya Shangari,

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. HS. Paonam,

learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel for

respondent No. 4. Service to respondent No.5 is awaited.

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 3

[2] The single point for determination in the present case for the

purpose of consideration of interim relief is

“Whether a candidate, appearing in NEET -UG

counselling for MBBS conducted by Directorate of

Medical Education, Government of Manipur in terms

of the Notification dated 10.08.2026 read with

Annexure-SOP, can choose a different ‘seat choice’

in subsequent round of counselling, as different from

the one chosen in earlier round of counselling or

not?”

[3] The petitioner herein, i.e., Ms. Nishita Laishram appeared in

National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG), 2026 [in short, NEET (UG),

2026] for admission in MBBS. As per the result declared by National

Testing Agency and National Medical Commission, the petitioner scored

a total of 325 out of 720 with All India Rank 500285, category of OBC-

NCL (Central List), and rank in the category is 225374.

[4] The Directorate of Medical Education, Government of

Manipur issued a Notification dated 10.08.2026 [Annexure A-3] for giving

general information to all the concerned, that candidates who have

qualified in NEET-UG, 2026 can participate in “The Manipur e-

Counselling 2026-2027” for allotment of ‘three types of seats’:

A: State Government seat for MBBS, BDS, BASLP

courses at RIMS, JNIMS, Shija Academy of Health

Sciences (SAHS), Churachandpur Medical College

(CMC), Regional Dental College (RDC), Guwahati.

B: Management quota seats for MBBS courses at Shija

Academy of Health Sciences (SAHS)

C: NRI quota seats for MBBS course at Shija Academy

of Health Sciences (SAHS).

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 4

As per the term of the Notification, eligible candidates are

compulsorily to register in the web portal of the Directorate:

(i) Registration and Choice Filling/Locking: 13.08.2026 to

19.08.2026;

(ii) Notification of Merit List of applied candidates:

21.08.2026;

(iii) Publication of Seat Allotment Result: 25.08.2026; and

(iv) Reporting/Joining at the allotted institute: 25.08.2026

to 28.08.2026.

[5] Para 5 of the Notification says that the “SOP for Registration

and 1

st

Round of Counselling” in Annexure-A has to be read by the

candidates carefully. As per para 6, two types of payment are to be made:

a. Non-refundable Applications Fees:

(i) ₹2000/-(₹1500/-for ST and SC candidates) for

State Government seats.

(ii) 2000/- for Private (Management & NRI quota)

seats at SAHS, Langol.

(iii) ₹4000/- (₹3500/- for ST and SC candidates) for

both Government and Private

(Management/NRI quota) Seats.

b. Refundable Security Fees of ₹15000/- for all

categories.

Para 7 says that candidates who have applied in the 1

st

Round not required for filling in the registration in the subsequent round

but “Choice Filling” in the web-based application will be mandatory for

every round of counselling.

Para A: 4 of the SOP says that a candidate can choose from

three types namely, Government (RIMS, JNIMS, CMC, SAHS -Govt.

quota, RDC), Management (SAHS Management) and NRI (SAHS NRI).

At the time of registration, multiple choices of seats are allowed subject

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 5

to payment of relevant fees; once final submission is completed, seat type

selections are permanently locked; and re-categorization, modifications

or alteration requests are strictly prohibited.

For clear understanding and easy reference, a scanned copy

of the Notification dated 10.08.2026 issued by Directorate of Medical

Education, Government of Manipur laying down procedures for

registration for online counselling for MBBS course, is reproduced below:

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 6

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 7

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 8

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 9

[6] The petitioner submitted her application in the website of

State respondent from a cybercafé run by respondent No. 5. In the

proforma format [Annexure A-5] available at the cybercafé for the said

purpose, she chose/ticked ‘Management seat of SAHS’. However, at the

time of uploading of her choice, it was inadvertently ticked as ‘State seat’.

A scanned copy of the proforma format is reproduced as:

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 10

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 11

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 12

[7] In the web-based print out issued by the Medical Directorate,

the preference acknowledgement slip for 1

st

Round Counselling of the

petitioner is given as SAHS, CMC, JNIMS and RIMS. The same is

annexed as Annexure A/6 with the writ petition, a scanned copy of which

is as under:

[8] On coming to know about the error in her choice of institute

category as ‘State quota’ in the uploaded application, she submitted a

representation dated 18.08.2026 to the Director of Medical

Education/Admission Counselling Authority for changing her seat

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 13

selection from ‘Government Seat’ to ‘Management seat at SAHS’. A

scanned copy of the representation [Annexure-7] is reproduced below:

[9] The Directorate of Medical Education, Government of

Manipur forwarded the request of the petitioner along with two others to

the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 14

of Manipur vide a letter dated 18.08.2026 with a comment that the

petitioner is eligible for applying in the Management quota. A scanned

copy of the forwarding letter dated 18.08.2026 [Annexure-8] is

reproduced as:

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 15

[10] However, by the impugned Order dated 21.08.2026 issued

by the Joint Secretary (Health & FW), Government of Manipur, the

representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is

no room for re-registration as per the relevant guidelines; notifications and

the relevant SOP do not allow changing of the seat. Accordingly, the

representation dated 18.08.2026 was rejected. A scanned copy of the

speaking order dated 21.08.2026 [Annexure-9] is reproduced below:

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 16

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 17

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 18

[11] Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present

writ petition with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order dated

21.08.2026. The prayer is reproduced below:

“(i) issue rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show

cause as to why the prayer prayed for by the petitioner

shall not be granted after hearing them make the rule

absolute. Call for the records of the case.

(ii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the

impugned order dated 21-08-2026 (Annexure-A/9) as

the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus by directing the

Respondents to allow the petitioner to appear at the

3rd round of counselling at The SAHS under the

Management Seat/Quota as have been done in

respect of other similarly situated persons.

(iv) pass any other appropriate writ/ order/direction that

this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

[12] Along with the writ petition being WP(C) No. 722 of 2026, the

petitioner also filed an application being MC(WP(C)) No. 749 of 2026

inter-alia praying for allowing her to appear in the 3

rd

Round Counselling

at SAHS under the Management seat by staying the operation of the

impugned order dated 21.08.2026. The prayer in MC(WP(C)) No. 749 of

2026 is reproduced below:

(i) allow the applicant to appear before the said 3rd round

of counselling at the SAHS under the Management

seat by staying the operation of the impugned order

dated 21-08-2026 (Annexure-B/1) as the same is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

(ii) pass any other appropriate interim order/direction that

this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

[13] When the matter was taken up on 22.09.2026 as unlisted

item on mentioning due to urgency involved in the matter, as 3

rd

Round

Counselling would start on 29.09.2026, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned A.G.,

requested for taking up the matter on 23.09.2026 at 2:00 p.m. so that he

could take appropriate instruction. On 23.09.2026, when the matter was

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 19

taken up, learned A.G. submitted that he filed an affidavit of preliminary

objection dated 23.09.2026 raising the question of maintainability of the

writ petition along with the documents. Since the same was not on record,

the matter was directed to be listed on 24.09.2026.

[14] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has scored 325 out of 720 in the NEET with

all India rank of 500285, in OBC category and NEET category rank:

225374 for the year 2026-27. In terms of the notification dated

10.08.2026 issued by the Director of Medical Education, Manipur, she

applied for participating in the counselling of Manipur Medical e-

Counselling 2026-27 for MBBS course. As per the said notification, there

are three categories as mentioned above; the date of registration and

choice filing/locking were from 13.08.2026 to 19.08.2026; and ‘para 5’ of

the notification dated 10.08.2026 required the candidates to read SOP for

registration and ‘para 6’ prescribes a ‘non-refundable fee’ of (i) Rs. 2000/-

(Rs. 1500/- for ST and SC candidates) for State Govt. seats, (ii) Rs. 2000/-

for Private (Management & NRI quota) seats at SAHS, Langol, & (iii) Rs.

4000/-(Rs. 3500/- for ST & SC candidates) for both Govt. and private

(Management/NRI quota) seats and refundable security fee of Rs.

15000/- for all categories. ‘Para A.4’ of SOP provides that the candidates

can choose three types of seats namely, (i) Govt. (RIMS, JNIMS, CMC,

SAHS-Govt. quota, RDC), (ii) Management (SAHS Management), and (iii)

NRI (SAHS NRI) at the time of registration. Multiple choices are permitted

subject to payment of the requisite fees. Once the final submission is

completed, seat type selections are permanently locked; and no

modification thereof will be entertained.

[15] Learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner submitted her application through NETCOM CyberCafe,

Keishampat, Keisam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 20

Manipur (respondent no. 5 herein) and in the proforma available with

respondent no. 5, the petitioner mentioned all her details including the

seat quota applied for. She ticked the ‘Management quota at SAHS’.

Learned sr. counsel further submits that inadvertently while uploading by

respondent no. 5 on behalf of the petitioner, the choice of seat was

wrongly ticked as ‘Govt. seat’ with 1

st

preference as SAHS, 2

nd

as CMC,

3

rd

as JNIMS, 4

th

as RIMS. On coming to know of this inadvertent mistake

in uploading the wrong seat choice, the petitioner submitted

representation dated 18.08.2026 to the Director of Medical Education/

Admission Counselling Authority, Manipur for changing her seat

preference from ‘State quota’ to ‘Management quota’. The representation

was forwarded by the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Manipur to

the Commissioner cum Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of

Manipur by a letter dated 18.08.2026 along with 2(two) other applications

with the remarks that the petitioner was ‘eligible for applying for

Management quota’. However, without considering the same and by

taking a very hyper technical view, the representation was rejected by

impugned speaking order dated 21.08.2026; on the ground that, as per

the SOP, the change of seat category cannot be entertained.

[16] Learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that by the

present petition, the only prayer is for allowing the petitioner to appear

in the 3

rd

round of counselling against the ‘Management quota seat at

SAHS’ and in doing so, the petitioner is not claiming any relaxation in the

merit and the schedule of the counselling will not be affected. The

petitioner cannot be penalized for the inadvertent mistake committed at

the time of the online registration. This would amount to penalising

promising students like the petitioner herein for no fault of theirs that too

for an innocuous and non-deliberate omission.

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 21

[17] Learned sr. counsel draws the attention of this Court in order

dated 18.09.2026 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 707 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C)) No. 733 of 2026 (Preety Soibam vs. State of Manipur &

2 Ors.) whereby, in an exactly similar situation, the petitioner therein,

who obtained the NEET scored of 397 was also not included in the 2

nd

list

of counselling for ‘Management seat at SAHS’ on the ground that the

petitioner therein, had also ticked her choice as ‘State quota at SAHS’,

This Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the choice of seat

preference (as per State record) showed only ‘SAHS’ without any

qualification of ‘State quota’ or ‘Management quota’ and choice of SAHS

would include both ‘State quota’ and ‘Management quota’. Scanned copy

of the order dated 18.09.2026 is reproduced below for easy reference:

“18.09.2026

[1] This matter is taken as unlisted item due to

urgency involved in the matter (admission in the MBBS

Course in Manipur).

[2] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel

assisted by Ms. Y. Jinita, learned counsel for the petitioner.

[3] The petitioner appeared in National Eligibility

cum Entrance Test (UG), 2026 for admission in MBBS Course

and her scored is 397 out of 720. In the 1

st

round of

counselling for the medical college in Manipur, the petitioner

made first preference as Churachandpur Medical College

(CMC) and second preference as SAHS (Shija Academy of

Health Sciences). The petitioner was not considered in the

1

st

round of counselling, however, for the 2

nd

counselling the

petitioner made first preference as SAHS, second as CMC,

third as Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences

(JNIMS) & fourth as Regional Institute of Medical Sciences

(RIMS). The seats allocation for the 2

nd

counselling was

issued by notification dated 16.09.2026 against the

management quota for SAHS; 25(twenty-five) students were

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 22

recommended for admission; the last one scored 339 and

first two scored 470 and 397 respectively.

[4] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner scored is 397 and she

should be recommended at sl. no. 2 in the SAHS against the

management quota and without any justification her name

has been omitted, thereby depriving the petitioner has a

chance to get admission in the 2

nd

round of counselling. The

learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondents may be permitted to make seat choice against

MBBS seat in management quota at SAHS and directed the

respondents to participate in 3

rd

round of counselling or any

other seat available in SAHS. It is further submitted that the

petitioner has been informed that her name was not in the

selected list of the candidates for admission in SAHS against

the management quota, as her choice was considered

against the SAHS State seat.

[5] Issue notice.

[6] Mr. A. Priyokumar Sharma, learned counsel

assisting Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Addl. AG accepts notice

on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Gunabanta,

learned counsel assisting Mr. HS Paonam, learned sr. counsel

accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 3 (SAHS). Hence,

service is complete on all respondents. Since, the only prayer

is for admission in MBBS Course, instead of waiting for

counter affidavit, this Court with the consent of all the

learned counsel appearing for the parties proposes to dispose

of this case at this stage.

[7] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Addl. AG submits

that the choice of the petitioner has been considered against

SAHS State seat. He further explains that in the SAHS, there

are 3(three) categories of seat, i.e. State quota, Management

quota and NRI quota. He draws the attention of this Court to

the contents in ‘para 5’ of the writ petition where, it is

specifically pleaded the petitioner has not opted for

management quota by way of her choice and in such

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 23

situation, she was rightly excluded from the list of 2

nd

counselling for management quota in SAHS.

[8] Mr. HS Paonam, learned sr. counsel for the

SAHS submits that at this stage, SAHS has no role in the

admission and whole admission process is done as per the

direction of the State respondents and in the State

counselling, SAHS has no role except complying the

recommendation made by the State Level Counselling

Committee.

[9] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel submits

that presuming that the petitioner has applied for SAHS State

quota only (not admitting but considering the sake of

argument as submitted by learned Addl. AG), her case can

be considered favourably. There is precedent by this Court

where, candidates in the MBBS Course in SAHS were

permitted to opt for the management quota where the choice

at the time of the counselling was for State quota. Learned

sr. counsel refers to order dated 12.08.2025 passed by this

Court in WP(C) No. 620 of 2025 (Khulem Nishant Singh vs.

Union of India & 4 Ors.) whereas, all candidates in similar

situation were permitted to opt for the SAHS management

quota.

[10] This Court has perused the materials on record.

As per Annexure-A/3, the choice of seat option given by

the petitioner is one CMC, second SAHS and for clear

understanding, the seat choice in the 1

st

counselling and 2

nd

counselling are reproduced below:

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 24

[11] On clear perusal of the choice of preferences

filed by Annexures- A/3 & A/7, nothing is shown that the

petitioner opted for SAHS State quota. This Court is of the

view that the petitioner opted for SAHS necessarily includes

both State quota as management quota and NRI. Petitioner

shall be eligible for considering against the State quota as

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 25

well as management quota by Annexure- A/3 & A/7 which

are documents of the State counselling and mentioned by

the Directorate of Medical Education, Govt. of Manipur. Even

though SAHS has no role at this stage, Mr. HS Paonam,

learned sr. counsel fairly submits that there are seats

available against the management quota of SAHS of MBBS

Course as on today.

[12] Considering all these facts together, this Court

is of the view that it will be the interest of justice to treat the

petitioner at sl. no. 2 in the list of candidates in the 2

nd

round

for SAHS management quota. In the circumstances, this

Court directed respondent no. 2 to insert the name of the

petitioner as 1(a) in the notification dated 16.09.2026 and

she is permitted to take admission as qualified in 2

nd

counselling on the basis of this order.

[13] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Addl. AG submits

that today is the last day of joining of the college.

Accordingly, petitioner is permitted on the basis of this order

to join SAHS today. Any formality will be completed within a

period of 10(ten) days from today.

[14] With these observations, WP(C) No. 707 of 2026

& MC(WP(C)) No. 733 of 2026 are disposed of. No costs.

[15] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned

counsel appearing for the parties by whatsapp or any other

available mode.”

[18] This Court, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the

choice preference acknowledgement slip, held in Preety Soibam (supra)

that preference showing as ‘SAHS’ would means both the ‘State quota seat’

and ‘Management quota seat’ in SAHS. In the circumstances, respondents

were directed to include the name of the petitioner herein, in the 2

nd

counselling list and to admit her in SAHS from 2

nd

counselling list.

[19] Learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the

present case is exactly similar with the facts of Preety Soibam (supra);

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 26

and both are appearing in the same counselling of NEET (UG), 2026 for

admission conducted by Manipur Government. It is further submitted that

by allowing the petitioner to participate in the 3

rd

round of counselling for

admission in MBBS course under Manipur Govt., no prejudice will cause to

any other persons and it will in the interest of justice. The petitioner should

not be made to suffer for the lapse happened at the time of the registration,

notwithstanding by herself or NETCOM Cyber Cafe (respondent no. 5

herein); and petitioner is not asking any relaxation of the merit and by

allowing her to appear in 3

rd

round of counselling, the prescribed time

schedule will not be affected.

[20] On the other hand, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate

General has referred to the preliminary affidavit dated 23.09.2026 to the

fact that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present form, as it does

not disclose violation of any mandatory statutory provision; and the

petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or violation of the

mandatory requirement; and the present case is not one where the

petitioner was not selected due to any fault of the State, but due to her own

mistake. It is further stated that averment is based on misconception of

facts and is legally unatenable. Learned AG refers to the notification dated

10.08.2026 issued by Director of Medical Education that 3(three) categories

of seat are available, i.e., (i) Govt. quota (RIMS, JNIMS, CMC, SAHS-Govt.

quota, RDC), (ii) Management quota (SAHS Management), and (iii) NRI

quota (SAHS NRI) and the candidate has option to apply online for all the

categories after payment of necessary fees. Learned AG draws the attention

to the SOP schedule at ‘para A: 4’ to the point that once the choices relating

to 3(three) categories of seat are permanently locked, no modification or

altercation will be entertained thereafter. Learned GA submits that

Annexure A/5 (the proforma available with respondent no. 5) is not

recognized by the State and the State is not bound by its contents; and

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 27

State will strictly go by the information available in the website and official

documents. As evident from the preference acknowledgment slip, i.e.,

Annexure A/6 with the writ petition, this preference of SAHS, CMC, JNIMS,

RIMS will be considered against the Govt. seat in terms of the ‘para 1 A’ of

the notification dated 10.08.2026. Learned AG has also referred to the

preliminary affidavit where, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 17,000/-

only [Annexure C-1] which is Rs.2,000/- for the State seat and Rs. 15,000/-

refundable. If the petitioner intends to appear for Management seat of SAHS

also, she has to pay Rs. 2,000/- more. In this regard, learned AG further

refers to preliminary affidavit of the State where, another candidate pays

Rs. 19,000/- [Annexure C-3] (Rs. 2,000/- for Govt. seat and Rs.2,000/- for

Management seat of SAHS). It is urged that the petitioner has not rightly

been considered for the ‘Management seat of SAHS’ in terms of SOP

specially at para A.4. Since the petitioner has paid only fee for State quota

only, she cannot be considered for the Management quota of SAHS. It is

also further submitted that the last candidate under Management quota in

SAHS has a score of 339 at sl. no. 25 and petitioner scored being 325, she

would be eligible even in the 3

rd

round of counselling. Learned AG refers to

the following cases law:

(i) 2001(8) SCC 355 at para 4 [Arvind Kumar Kankane vs.

State of UP & Ors.] where, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“4. …..It is clear that once an option is exercised by a

candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and

thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in

subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the

process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by

the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the

academic course within the stipulated period.”

(ii) 2012 (7) SCC 433 para 38-40 [Priya Gupta v. State of

Chhattisgarh] where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

emphasised for adherence to the merit and time schedule for

admission and refraining from mid-term admission. It was

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 28

held that the ‘schedule’ of admission has force of law under

Article 141 of Constitution of India, as the same part of the

judgment of the Court.

(iii) Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission vs. Israr

Ahmad & Ors. reported in 2005 (12) SCC 498 para 5 held

that categories of caste cannot be changed mid-way and para

5 is reproduced as:

“5. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by

both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot

be accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate

entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate

along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of

the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient

to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He

passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate

and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he

cannot avail of reservation on the ground that he was

successful in getting the required certificate only at a later

stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was

applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once

a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is

entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh

claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a

candidate he had also had the qualification and the production

of the certificate at a later stage would make him entitled to

seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the

Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs.”

(iv) In the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan High

Court, Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Neetu Harsh & Anr. reported

in 2021 (11) SCC 383, where the candidate for appearing

in the Judicial Service Examination mentioned in application

form has ‘no’ against the ‘column 3.1- person with disability,

fee was paid for General seat; and the disability certificate was

not enclosed with the application form and nor was produced

before the completion of the interview. It is held by Hon’ble

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 29

Supreme Court that option cannot be changed midway before

completion of the examination.

(v) 2024(1) SCC 448 [Divya vs. Union of India & Ors.] at

para 94, where, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasis that

option category cannot be changed and eligibility has to be

considered on the relevant date. As the petitioner did not

satisfy criterion of EWS on the relevant cut-off date, she would

not be considered against EWS quota on basis of subsequent

fulfilling of criterion on a later date.

[21] Learned AG has highlighted that as per the notification and

SOP for registration, the candidate is required, at first instance, to confirm

the correctness of data entered by him/her before final up-dation and the

verification is also carried out by the candidate and not by the Cyber Café

(respondent no. 5). It is the lapse of the petitioner and it is further stated

that the notification and SOP has statutory force as held in Priya Gupta

(supra); and the same cannot be interfered even by the Constitutional Court

in exercise of its extraordinary power. It is submitted that the application

for interim relief seeking permission for the petitioner to participate in 3

rd

round of counselling starting from 23.09.2026 be rejected being devoid of

merit; and the same is contrary to the SOP published by the State

respondent vide notification dated 10.08.2026.

[22] In reply, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned sr. counsel for the

petitioner submits that cases cited by the learned AG are not applicable in

the present case and those decisions are on different factual matrices. It is

explained that in the present case, the petitioner is not praying anything for

relaxation and she simply requests for allowing her to allow to participate in

3

rd

round of counselling as per her merit and nothing more than that.

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 30

[23] Mr. HS Paonam, learned sr. counsel for the SAHS submits

that at this stage, SAHS has no role in the counselling and/or admission;

and it will abide by any decision and recommendation of the State

counselling board.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

[24] By the present petition, the petitioner prays for a simple

adjustment of her choice of seat to the Management quota of SAHS; and

the petitioner is willing to pay the difference of Rs. 2,000/- as per the

notification dated 10.8.2026 and SOP; and by allowing her to do so, the

main contents of the guidelines and SOP will not be compromised; rather,

the petitioner is only asking for allowing her to participate in the 3

rd

round

of counselling for MBBS Course on her own merit. It is submitted that the

petitioner has prima facie a good case on merit, the balance of convenience

is also in her favour and the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss, if the

relief prayed for (i.e., for participation in the 3

rd

round of counselling pending

the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.08.2026) is not

granted. It is further urged that if the interim relief is not granted and in

case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, it would be a futile exercise;

as she will not be able to get admission for the MBBS course (2026-27) in

Manipur.

[25] This Court has considered the materials on record especially,

the notification dated 10.08.2026 issued by Director of Medical Education,

Manipur laying down the guidelines for Manipur Medical e-Counselling 2026-

27 for allotment of seats for Govt. quota (RIMS, JNIMS, CMC, SAHS-Govt.

quota, RDC), Management quota (SAHS Management) and NRI quota

(SAHS NRI). The candidate can also choose all three options subject to

payment of requisite fee for each category, i.e., Rs. 2,000/- each and for

availing ‘State quota’ seat and ‘Management quota’ seat at SAHS and with

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 31

refundable fee of Rs. 15,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner paid only for one

category Rs. 17,000/- (Rs.2000+15000). Even if she intended to apply for

Management quota of SAHS, due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake at

the time of uploading from the Cyber Café of respondent no. 5, the category

was wrongly ticked as ‘State quota’ while uploading her registration; and

the same was done on 13.8.2026. On coming to know of this inadvertent

error, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.08.2026 to

Director of Medical Education for changing from ‘State quota’ to

‘Management quota’ seat well before the closing of the registration or

locking of the choice which was valid from 13.08.2026 to 19.08.2026.

However, the same was rejected after the lapse of the prescribed time

period by impugned order dated 21.08.2026 only on the ground that SOP

does not allow to change of the seat. This Court has gone through the

preliminary affidavit filed by the State respondents raising the

maintainability of the writ petition and also annexure files along with it. From

this document filed by the State respondent especially Annexure C-1, the

petitioner submitted fees of Rs. 17,000/- for the State seat in RIMS, JNIMS,

CMC, RDC and SAHS Govt. quota and her subject preference as per

Annexure C-2 of the preliminary affidavit in SAHS, CMC, JNIMS and RIMS.

[26] This Court does not find any merit on the plea of the State

respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present form

for the simple reason that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been

debarred from participating in 3

rd

round of counselling for admission in

MBBS. In fact, she is ‘an aggrieved person’ who has every right to approach

this Court for redressing her grievance. The plea of learned AG to the point

that SOP has statutory value does not merit any consideration, as the SOP

is just a piece of administrative instruction and not issued in exercise of

power conferred by any statute/rules.

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 32

[27] This Court has also perused the guidelines for counselling

issued by National Testing Agency and NCM [Annexure A/1] for

counselling and reservation of MBBS. No such strict stipulation prohibiting

alternation of seat choice is contemplated in the national guidelines. From

perusal of Annexure A-6, the petitioner has made choice preference as

‘SAHS’ without any prefix or suffix as ‘State quota’ or ‘Management quota’.

The same will be clear from bare perusal of preference acknowledgement

slip [Annexure A-6] of the petitioner downloaded from the website of the

respondents. Annexure A-6 is, admittedly, the document of State

Government.

CHANGE OF CHOICE OF SEAT:

[28] It will be relevant to refer to Para A: 14 of SOP which

stipulates that ‘choice of seat’ is mandatory for every round of counselling

and ‘choice in any round will not be valid for further rounds’. Para A: 14 is

reproduced for seeking clarity and to nullify and demolish the falsity in plea

of learned AG that ‘choice of seat’ is locked for all rounds of counselling and

cannot be changed/altered at any stage.

Para A: 14. Registration in the web-based application will be

allowed before every Round of Counselling. Candidates who

have registered for any round of counselling need not register

again for further rounds. “Choice Filling” in the web-based

application will be mandatory for every round of counselling.

“Choice of seat” filled in any round will not be valid for further

rounds.”

(underlined is supplied by this Court)

[29] From the above quoted Para A: 14 of SOP, it is clear as broad

daylight that ‘choice of seat’ for any round will not be valid for any

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 33

subsequent round and ‘choice filling’ of seat in web-based application is

mandatory for every round of counselling. In other word, the petitioner has

to make another ‘choice filling’ of seat for third round of counselling and

earlier choice made for first round will not be valid in the third round. In the

circumstances, this Court is of the view that the submission of learned

Advocate General that seat choice modification is barred by Para A: 4 of

SOP, has no substance and the same is liable to be rejected. The only

obvious conclusion is that learned AG has conveniently not referred to Para

A: 14 of SOP; and has made selective reference to Para A: 4 of SOP only so

as to block the participation of a promising student from 3

rd

round of

counselling. It may be noted that Advocate General as defined under Article

165 of the Constitution of India is for the ‘whole’ of ‘State’ including its

‘citizens’ and he is not to defend the Government alone, unlike other

Government Advocates and Prosecutors. It is a settled proposition of law

that an Advocate General can advise the government on any issue,

specifically when injustice is meted to citizens.

[30] This Court intends to differentiate between the stipulations

made in Para A: 4 & 14 of the SOP; and these two para are to be read in

conjunction, so that both of them are not redundant. On casual reading of

Para A: 4, it is crystal clear that once seat choice is locked, the same cannot

be changed/modified for that particular round of counselling. On the other

hand, Para A: 14 specifically stipulates that choice of seat in a round will not

be valid in subsequent round of counselling and candidates have to make

and lock seat preference for every round of counselling. Learned AG has

wrongly relied Para A: 4 for subsequent round of counselling, where Para

A: 14 will be applicable in terms of the notification and SOP issued by the

State respondents themselves.

[31] This Court, in the case of Preety Soibam (supra), has held

in ‘para no. [11]’ that the choice of ‘SAHS’ necessarily includes both ‘State

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 34

seat’ as well as ‘Management seat’. It has been informed during the course

of hearing that the order dated 18.09.2026 in Preety Soibam (supra), has

not been challenged before the appropriate forum, nor has any review

petition been filed against the same. Hence, the same has attined finality.

DIRECTIONS:

[32] This Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of

justice, if the petitioner is allowed to participate in the ongoing 3

rd

round of

counselling against the Management quota by converting her application

dated 18.08.2026 [Annexure A-7] as fresh ‘choice of seat’ for third round of

counselling in view of Para A: 14 of SOP appended to Notification dated

10.08.2026 [Annexure A-3]. Accordingly, MC(WP(C)) No. 749 of 2026 is

allowed and the State respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to

participate in the ongoing 3

rd

round of counselling. This direction is issued

in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred on a Constitutional Court

as mandated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to do complete

justice to an innocent student who is a victim of State malice

[33] In case the 3

rd

round of counselling has already been

concluded, a special 3

rd

round of counselling shall be conducted for the

petitioner.

[34] It is made clear that this Court has, consciously, passed this

interim order in order to protect the interest of the petitioner. In case, she

succeeds in the writ petition and is without the interim relief at this stage,

her success in the main matter would be a futile exercise and will become

infructuous.

[35] List the main matter on 28.09.2026.

[36] Parties may complete their pleadings during this meantime.

2026:MNHC:216

WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026 Page 35

[37] Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to learned

counsel appearing for the parties by whatsapp or any available mode during

the course of day.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Kh. Joshua Maring/Thoiba