Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 07.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 7 April, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:300
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 442 of 2025
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
Miss Tanuska Chakraborty,
D/o Shri Tapan Chakraborty,
R/o Lower Jail Road, Shillong-1,
District East Khasi Hills,
Meghalaya, Pin-793001
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
The Chief Secretary of the
Government of Meghalaya, Civil Secretariat,
M.G. Road, Shillong-1.
2. Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Health & Family Welfare Department, Shillong
Meghalaya, Civil Secretariat, M.G. Road, Shillong-1
3. The Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Meghalaya,
Health & Family Welfare, Shillong, Meghalaya,
Civil Secretariat, M.G. Road, Shillong-1
4. The Director of Health Service, Medical Education & Research (DME)
Meghalaya, Pasture, Lawmali, Shillong.
... Respondent(s)
5. Rikor Nongkynrih, Serial No. 1 of the Khasi & Jaintia
Reserved category already in the list of selection candidate for
admission in MBBS course (since the address of the Sl. No.-1
is not known to the petitioner) … Proforma Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
___________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. G. Purkayastha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA
Ms. S. Laloo, GA
Ms. I. Syiemlieh, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The writ petitioner is before this Court assailing a revised
selection list in the matter of preparation of selection of candidates to
MBBS Course for the academic year 2025-26, from the State quota,
wherein her name through originally selected has been removed and the
respondent No. 5, put in her place for allocation of a seat. The petitioner’s
case is that though she had initially secured a seat based on her NEET merit
score, the same has been denied by the State respondents by allowing
migration of a candidate from the Reserved category to the General Un-
reserved category, thereby displacing the petitioner, which she contends is
Page 2 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
a violation of the established Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and the
principles of equality in the admission process.
2. Ms. G. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the State’s action of migrating a candidate from the Reserved
category is arbitrary and contrary to the SOP dated 08.09.2025, for MBBS
admission. She submits that as per the original selection list published on
30.09.2025, the petitioner was allocated a seat under the Open category
based on her NEET merit score of 442, but because of the migration which
was allowed by a subsequent amendment dated 07.10.2025, the petitioner
has been deprived of the medical seat. The learned counsel has laid
emphasis on the seats reservation breakdown contained in the SOP, to
advance her case that as per the original list, her name had figured at No.
14, from the 14 seats that had been earmarked for Open category/Un-
reserved, which she contends that by allowing the migration of a candidate
from the Reserved category has resulted in her being placed in the waiting
list.
3. The learned counsel has further submitted that an ST candidate
and an Un-reserved candidate stand at a different footing as regards
eligibility, and also on the amount of fees paid to sit for the NEET
examination, whereby a General category candidate has to pay Rs. 1700/-,
a Reserved candidate has only to pay Rs. 1000/-. She thus submits a
Page 3 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
Reserved candidate having availed the benefit of relaxation for admission
into the MBBS Course, the respondent No. 5, merely due to a higher NEET
score surpassing the petitioner, cannot fall within the General category. In
support of her case, the learned counsel has relied upon the following two
judgments: –
i) Union of India vs. G. Kiran & Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 22
ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943
4. In reply the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State
respondents, has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the recruitment process, inasmuch as, objections have been raised
by her, only after being found non-meritorious, and as such having accepted
the terms of the advertisement dated 09.09.2025, and the application of the
State Reservation Policy, she cannot at this stage challenge the result or
claim a legitimate seat under the General Un-reserved category. It is further
submitted that according to the SOP dated 08.09.2025, the same has never
explicitly stated that the 14 Un-reserved seats are exclusively for the
General community instead, the Un-reserved category includes all
candidates who quality on the basis of merit regardless of their specific
community or category.
5. The learned Advocate General has contended that if a
candidate from a Reserved category secures a higher merit score than a
Page 4 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
General category candidate, they are entitled to be selected in the Open
category. In the instant case he submits, the respondent No. 5, though from
the Reserved category, had scored 475 marks over the petitioner who scored
442 marks, and as such the placement of the respondent No. 5, in the Open
category list is valid and permissible. It was also highlighted by the learned
Advocate General, that though the petitioner had opted for both Shillong
Medical College and Central Pool seat (State Quota), she was not
shortlisted as 12 candidates in total with higher merit scores filled all the
available Un-reserved seats. It has also been submitted that in these matters
Courts have a very limited role in reviewing the selection process, inasmuch
as, these fall within the expert domain of a selection committees and
judicial intervention is only warranted if there is a violation of the
fundamental or legal rights. In support of his arguments, the learned
Advocate General has relied upon the following judgments: –
i) Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2010) 3 SCC 119
ii) Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2021) 4 SCC 542
iii) Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah & Ors. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the mind of
the Court, the only issue in question is to decide whether the migration of
Page 5 of 9
2026:MLHC:300the Reserved candidate i.e. respondent No. 5, by virtue of a higher NEET
score is permissible and in accordance with law. It is first noted that in the
NEET examinations, the writ petitioner belonging to the Un-reserved
category had scored 442 marks, whereas the respondent No. 5, though
belonging the Reserved category had scored 475 marks, making her more
meritorious than the petitioner. As per the SOP at Para-6 thereof, the
number of seats allocated to the Un-reserved category is 14, and thus on a
plain reading and understanding, would mean these seats are to be allocated
strictly in terms of merit without taking any category into consideration i.e.
whether a candidate belongs to a Reserved or General category.
7. It is also relevant to observe herein that there is no embargo in
the migration of the respondent No. 5, to the Un-reserved open category
given that the respondent No. 5, has secured the seat on merit and has scored
higher than the petitioner. Clause 9.6 of the SOP at Point No. 3, in this
regard has provided as follows: –
“In case the reserved category candidate who has been
selected under open category (UR), those candidates will be
given the choice of exercising the option of either UR or
respective category during the order/process of allocation of
seats”
8. The cases relied upon by the petitioner in the instant case will
have no application, inasmuch as, in both the decisions the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in the case of Sajib Roy (supra), which was
Page 6 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
followed in the Union of India vs. G. Kiran & Ors. (supra) at Para 33 as
follows: –
“33. Very recently in Sajib Roy (Supra), this court had the
occasion to deal with a similar factual matrix as observed
hereunder-
32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we
summarise as follows: Whether a reserved candidate
who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to
participate in open competition with general
candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats
would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say
in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment
Rules/employment notification, such reserved
candidates who have scored higher than the last
selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to
migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats.
However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant
recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not
be permitted to migrate to general category seats.
xxx xxx xxx
33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ
petitioners had availed concession of age for
participating in the recruitment process, in the teeth of
office memorandum dated 01.07.1998, the High Court
was wrong in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar
(supra) and permitting them to be considered for
appointment in the unreserved category.
Consequently, we set aside the common impugned
judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated
26.02.2019 and allow the appeals. Pending
application(s) if any, stand disposed of.”
9. In the instant case, it is to be noted that there is no embargo on
Reserved candidates who have scored higher to migrate and be considered
Page 7 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
against the Un-reserved seat. Further in the case of Saurav Yadav vs. State
of U.P (supra), it has been observed at paragraph-22 thereof, that a
candidate belonging to a vertical reservation category (such as SC, ST or
OBC) who qualifies based on their own merit is entitled to be selected in
the Open or General category and such selection, cannot be counted against
the quota specifically reserved for that vertical reservation category. This
principle which has become a well settled principle of law has also been
echoed at paragraph-10 in the case of Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah &
Ors. (supra).
10. Further, another point though not pleaded in the writ petition,
but argued by the counsel for the petitioner, with regard to relaxation of
eligibility, is the ground of payment of examination fees by the respondent
No. 5, which are lesser than the fees charged to the Un-reserved candidates.
This in the considered view of the Court will not amount to a relaxation that
will bar the Un-reserved candidate from being placed in the Open category
on merit, inasmuch as, such relaxation, be it age or waiver of examination
fee, does not amount to reservation, but is only to enable a Reserved
candidate to compete with others, and if such Reserved candidates acquires
a seat on the basis of his own merit, he cannot be treated to have been
selected only against the Reserved quota.
Page 8 of 9
2026:MLHC:300
11. In conclusion therefore, without dwelling on the other aspects
of the case i.e. the locus of the writ petitioner and submissions that have
been made which are not part of the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen
that there has been no illegality or arbitrariness in the list of selected
candidates dated 07.10.2025, and accordingly the writ petition stands
dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
07.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 9
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.07 17:50:39 IST