Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Sunday, October 18, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

State May Shift Cut-Off Date for In-Service Doctors' NEET-PG Bonus Marks: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two writ petitions by in-service government doctors against the State's letter/order of 08.01.2022, which counts their service in remote, difficult and rural areas up to 30.09.2021, instead of 30.04.2021, for bonus marks in NEET PG 2021 admissions (paras 2, 37). Fixing the cut-off date is a policy decision: the COVID-19 disruption justified departing from past practice, and hardship to some candidates does not make a date arbitrary (paras 22, 27-28).

State May Shift Cut-Off Date for In-Service Doctors' NEET-PG Bonus Marks: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Dr. Naveen Jakhar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 687/2022, connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1486/2022 (Sumit Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
1 February 2022
Bench
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Article 226; Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 — Regulation 9(IV)
Final Outcome

Both writ petitions (Nos. 687/2022 and 1486/2022) were dismissed, leaving the cut-off date of 30.09.2021 under the letter/order of 08.01.2022 in place (paras 34, 37). Special appeals, D.B. SAW/295/2022 and one more, have been filed.

View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. Past practice of a 30 April cut-off cannot bind the State once COVID-19 has disrupted the admission schedule (para 22).
  2. The State may extend the experience cut-off on its own, whatever the Medical Counseling Committee's internship letter covered (para 24).
  3. Bonus marks lifting a candidate in merit neither infringe others' rights nor change the rules of the game midway (paras 25-26).
  4. Every cut-off date affects some candidates; hardship alone is no ground to declare it arbitrary (para 28).
  5. A writ court interferes with a cut-off date only if it is whimsical or mala fide (para 29).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioners, government doctors serving in remote, difficult and rural areas, passed NEET PG 2021 and applied as in-service candidates entitled to incentive marks (para 3). The State had initially fixed 30.04.2021 as the cut-off date for counting their experience; the petitioners said 30 April had been its practice since 2018 (paras 9.1, 27). By the letter/order of 08.01.2022 it extended the date to 30.09.2021, referring to a Medical Counseling Committee letter of 26.10.2021 on completion of internship by MBBS graduates (paras 2, 6-7). The petitioners pleaded that the change reshuffled merit, citing a candidate who moved from position 513 to 190, and contradicted the State's earlier stand in another writ petition that the cut-off date was sacrosanct (paras 9.2-9.3).

Court's Findings

In Dr. Delip Singh the Court had already accepted the State's conscious decision to count experience up to 30.09.2021, and the Division Bench in Dr. Neha Choudhary treated the extension as a policy matter; as the validity of the order of 08.01.2022 had not been decided there, the Court examined it (paras 19-21, 34). A past practice of a 30 April date cannot prevail when COVID-19 has disrupted the examination and admission schedule (para 22). The State's earlier stand did not make the decision arbitrary, as it kept in mind the permissible benefit of up to 30% of NEET marks under Regulation 9(IV) (para 23). The State could extend the date on its own, whatever the Committee's letter covered (para 24). A candidate rising in merit through bonus marks does not affect another's right, and benefits under State policy do not change the rules of the game after it has started (paras 25-26). Extending the incentive for continued rural service serves its object and is not whimsical or mala fide (para 27). P. Mohanan Pillai and Shrilekha Vidyarthi were of little assistance (paras 30-31). The Madras and Delhi High Courts had likewise refused to extend internship cut-off dates (paras 35-36).

Legal Principle

Fixing the cut-off date for counting in-service doctors' service in remote, difficult and rural areas for bonus marks is a policy decision of the State. Hardship to some candidates does not make the date arbitrary, and a writ court under Article 226 interferes only if the date is fixed on whimsical considerations or mala fide (paras 27-29).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Dr. Delip Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11568/2021 and connected cases, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 10.01.2022
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9.5, 11.1, 19, 34

    The Court's own earlier order accepting the State's conscious decision to count in-service doctors' experience up to 30.09.2021; the validity of the notification of 08.01.2022 was not judged there, but the State's power to fix the cut-off date was approved.

  2. Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 201/2022 and connected appeal, Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench), order dated 25.01.2022
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 9.5, 11.1, 20-21, 34

    The Division Bench upheld Dr. Delip Singh, holding that extending the experience cut-off to 30.09.2021 is a matter of policy and discretion; the Court followed it while deciding the challenge the Division Bench had left open.

  3. Dr. Jitendra Singh Nitharwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11583/2021 and connected writ petitions, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 10.01.2022
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9.3, 18, 23

    The first series of petitions seeking parity with doctors completing internship by 30.09.2021, declared infructuous after the notification of 08.01.2022; the State's reply there was cited by the petitioners as an earlier stand that the date was sacrosanct.

View all precedents (13)
  1. P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala 2007 (9) SCC 497
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 30

    Cited by the petitioners; it concerned extending the zone of consideration by increasing the interview ratio without the candidates knowing, and was held of little assistance.

  2. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 537
    Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 10, 31

    Cited by the petitioners; an authority on fairness and reasonableness in State action and the absence of unfettered discretion, held of little assistance here.

  3. Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank & Ors. 2021 (6) SCC 707
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 32

    Cited by the petitioners for the rule that an authority's action must be sustained on the contents of the impugned order, not improved by later affidavits.

  4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33

    Referred to by the Court as the 1978 decision that settled the principle stated in Opto Circuit.

  5. State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad 1990 (3) SCC 368
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12

    Cited by counsel for the State.

  6. Union of India & Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994 (4) SCC 212
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12

    Cited by counsel for the State.

  7. UGC v. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996 (10) SCC 536
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12

    Cited by counsel for the State.

  8. Ramrao & Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12

    Cited by counsel for the State.

  9. G.A. Vishwajeet v. UOI & Ors. W.P. No. 16526/2021 and connected writ petitions, Madras High Court, decided on 09.08.2021
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 35-36

    The Madras High Court declined to extend the NEET PG 2021 internship-completion cut-off, holding that cut-off dates are not fixed on individual claims; relied on as consistent with this view.

  10. Sh. Arman Sindhu v. UOI & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 8429/2021, Delhi High Court, decided on 18.08.2021
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 36

    The Delhi High Court declined to extend the internship-completion date beyond 30.09.2021, also following G.A. Vishwajeet; relied on as consistent with this view.

Topics: Medical Education Regulation Judicial Review of Policy Arbitrariness in State Action
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: February 1, 2022 Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt