Dr Anish Ashok Shyadligeri & Ors. vs The State Of Goa & Ors.

(per SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Lawande with Mr. Mathew for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate General, Mr. Pangam, appearing with the learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Shirodkar, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6.

With the consent of the parties, the Petition is decided finally. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

This Petition is filed by the Petitioners who want to pursue post-graduation courses in the Goa Medical College. They have cleared their MBBS. They have also cleared NEET and their names are appearing in the merit list.

Respondent No. 1 is the State of Goa, Respondent No. 2 is the Public Health Department, Respondent No. 3 is the Goa Medical College, Respondent No. 4 is the Directorate of Technical Education, Respondent No. 5 is the National Medical Commission, Respondent No. 6 is the Directorate of Social Welfare and Respondent No. 7 is the Medical Counselling Committee.

At the time of filing of this Petition, the process for selecting the candidates for different post-graduate courses is ongoing. At this stage, the Petitioners are entertaining reasonable and real apprehension that, suddenly, in the midway, the Rules may be changed and their chances of getting the seat of their choice will suffer a serious setback. The Petitioners’ apprehension appears to be real because when we asked the learned Advocate General to respond to this apprehension, he fairly conceded that the proposal for changing the Rules is definitely under consideration.

The two main prayers in this Petition are prayer clauses (a) and (b). Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the other prayers in the Petition and therefore, we have considered the Petition only in respect of these two prayers. They are as follows:-

The brief background of this Petition is that the Directorate of Technical Education published a notice on 03.11.2025, inviting Applications for admission to post-graduate courses at the Goa Medical College. The submission form included the requirement to submit a declaration that the candidates have read and accepted the provisions of the prospectus. The prospectus is nothing but the Rules that are in existence since 2024. Those Rules were brought into force vide the notification dated 14.11.2024, and they were called the Goa (Rules for admission to Postgraduate Degree and Diploma Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 2004.

According to the Petitioners, they had applied for the post-graduate courses under those Rules, which were published as a prospectus on the website. However, the advertisement mentions that, “Rules, schedule of counselling, eligibility, merit and allotment list etc. shall be duly notified on DTE website, which all the applicants are advised to regularly refer to”. As of today, the merit list is published, and only the step of counselling remains to be completed by 01.12.2025. Till today, there is no publication regarding the change of the Rules. Inspite of that, the Petitioners are apprehensive that there could be a change in the Rules and it would change the entire prospects of all the candidates. As mentioned earlier, the learned Advocate General’s response justifies that apprehension.

It is the case of the Petitioners that through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the Petitioners learned that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were processing proposals to amend the governing Rules and to introduce a reservation in the form of a 100-point reservation system for post-graduate admission at the Goa Medical College for the Academic Year 2025-26. According to the Petitioners, the admission process has already commenced upon the issuance of the advertisement on 03.11.2025 and therefore, any attempt to amend the Rules at this belated stage would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and such a process would be entirely arbitrary.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he was concerned only about the seats available from the State Quota and he was not referring to the All India Quota (AIQ). The Petitioners apprehended that they would be adversely affected if the Rules are amended at this belated stage or if the roster-based reservations are introduced after the commencement of the process. The Petition mentions that there are 22 speciality courses which are available at Respondent No. 3-College and the total number of seats available for the State Quota is 68. Goa has only one Medical College offering post-graduate medical education with a limited number of seats, which are further divided across various clinical and non-clinical specialities. Admissions to such speciality courses demand the highest degree of transparency, predictability and certainty. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had rightly relied on the Rules, which were in existence when the admission process started by publishing the advertisement. These Rules operate as a prospectus for the admission process and exclusively govern eligibility, reservation and the manner of allocation of seats for PG courses at the Goa Medical College. The proposed introduction of a 100-point roster reservation would be a substantial outcome-altering modification as it would drastically alter the seat distribution.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court made in a batch of Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 2161 of 2025 (F) in the case of Akshay Shrivastava Vs. State of Goa and others along with other Petitions. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners heavily relied on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court wherein, in a similar situation, when the Rules were sought to be changed midway at the admission process. In that case, the Division Bench had not permitted the change of Rules and the relief was given to the Petitioners to the extent that the original Rules prevailing at the time of selection process were required to be implemented and followed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the said case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, submitted that the same course as adopted in the earlier decision will have to be followed and as per the ratio of that judgment, at this stage, the Rules cannot be changed.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the contesting Respondents agreed and accepted that the proposal for change of Rules is under consideration. The Respondents are in the process of changing the Rules to change the criteria for filling up the proposed list of the 100-point roster reservation system.

Considering this statement, it is quite clear that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners is not imaginary. It has a real basis, and therefore, we have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate General. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the Commission has recommended that the Rules be changed to introduce the filling up of courses based on the 100-point roster reservation system. It is in the interest of social justice that the Rules need to be changed.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has given the timeline, which would be relevant in this case. According to the background, the following are the important dates:-

04.05.2020 : The State Government intended to implement reservations for PG courses at the Goa Medical College for the Academic Year 2021-22.

14.11.2024 : The State Government introduced new admission Rules in suppression to the earlier Rules. Those rules are still in force till today and more importantly, both Rules were reflecting in the prospectus based on which the Applications were made by the Petitioners.

03.08.2025 : NEET examination was conducted and the results were declared on 19.08.2025.

17.10.2025 : All India Counselling registration were opened. The Petitioners made their AIQ choices i.e. All India Quota choices, keeping in mind the seats/specialities available at the Goa Medical College in terms of the relevant Rules.

03.11.2025 : The DET published an advertisement inviting Applications. The admission process, therefore, commenced for the State Quota in terms of the prevailing Rules.

From : The Petitioners submitted Applications with 03.11.2025 to required documentation. The Petitioners 10.11.2025 were required to fill in their choices of seats. Keeping in mind the scheme of reservations, the Petitioners made their choices.

19.11.2025 : The Directorate of Technical Education published the merit list, indicating that the admission process had reached an advanced stage.

22.11.2025 : The AIQ counselling round no. 1 concluded. The Petitioners' AIQ choices were locked and there was no further change possible.

21.11.2025 : The State counselling is scheduled to commence from 21.11.2025 onwards, which has to be completed before 01.12.2025.

In this background, at this very late stage, the Respondents are proposing to change the Rules, which would drastically affect the choices made by the Petitioners. We find that the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners is quite genuine and at this stage, if the Rules are changed, their choices, which they have already made, would be adversely affected and they would suffer irreparable loss.

A similar situation was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akshay Shrivastava (supra). In that case, the facts were somewhat similar. The NEET examination was conducted on 04.05.2025 for the academic sessions and the notice was issued by the Directorate of Technical Education inviting submission of Application forms to the professional courses, including MBBS, between 07.05.2025 to 16.05.2025 by clarifying that the forms will be submitted, irrespective of whether the NEET results were declared or not. The NEET results were declared on 14.07.2025 and the merit list was declared on 14.07.2025. The first round of counselling was notified by the notice dated 14.07.2025 and was slated from 01.08.2025, but was postponed to 05.08.2025. On 01.08.2025, the Government of Goa published a notification declaring that the Government had approved that if there were no eligible Applicants, vacant seats under the Children of Freedom Fighters, up to one seat in each institution, shall also be allotted to eligible meritorious sports persons fulfilling the conditions set out therein. Thus, the Rules were substantially changed. The Division Bench considered the effect of the change of Rules witnessed in the selection process and it was observed that, at this stage, it amounted to changing the Rules of the Game, which was not permissible and it was held that a midway change in the method of filling the seats cannot be accepted and permitted. The same view was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The observations of the Division Bench in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the Petitioners’ case before us today.

As observed earlier, at this belated stage, change of Rules would drastically and adversely affect the Petitioners. Such a step would be entirely arbitrary and therefore is not permissible. From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents, it is clear that they are in the process of changing the Rules. Therefore, we are interfering at this stage. Moreover, the last part of the advertisement itself is quite vague and hence, the candidates cannot be made to wonder what Rules would be brought in force during the remaining process of selection. This would lead to uncertainty. This is a clear case of arbitrariness. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-

The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus:-

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.