Nishita Laishram vs The State Of Manipur & Ors.

Registration and Choice Filling/Locking: 13.08.2026 to 19.08.2026;

Notification of Merit List of applied candidates: 21.08.2026;

Publication of Seat Allotment Result: 25.08.2026; and

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:

₹2000/-(₹1500/-for ST and SC candidates) for State Government seats.

2000/- for Private (Management & NRI quota) seats at SAHS, Langol.

₹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 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:

[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:

[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 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 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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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 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, 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.

[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] 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); 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 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:

2001(8) SCC 355 at para 4 [Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of UP & Ors.] where, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

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 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.

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:

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 Supreme Court that option cannot be changed midway before completion of the examination.

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

(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 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 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.

[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.

[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.