Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 14th October 2026 (Reserved on 5th October 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Vrutika Vasantbhai Rohit; Respondents – Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors., NAMO Medical Education and Research Society (Society), National Medical Commission (NMC), and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (No. 12846 of 2026) seeking quashing of seat allocation in the Prospectus‑cum‑Guidelines for admission to the First Year MBBS Course for Academic Year 2026‑2027.
  • Key Allegations: Petitioner claimed illegal allocation of 22 seats (15%) under an "NRI Quota" and 15 seats (10%) under a "Management Quota" out of a total sanctioned intake of 177 seats, arguing that these allocations reduced the merit pool for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates and were made without Central Government sanction.
  • Background: Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 11318 of 2025 challenging EWS seat allocation and the division of the Union Territory for separate merit lists. The earlier petition was adjourned multiple times, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition, leading to the present filing on 1st October 2026.
  • Seat Allocation Details:
  • Total MBBS seats for 2026‑2027: 177 (later increased to 200 after NMC approval of 23 additional seats).
  • NRI Quota: 22 seats (15%).
  • Management Quota: 15 seats (10%).
  • SC reservation for Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH): 1 seat (2% of DNH pool).
  • Petitioner’s merit: 363 NEET marks, All‑India Rank 375,218, placed SC Category Merit No. 2 and General Merit List No. 126.
  • Procedural History: Interim direction sought to keep one seat vacant for petitioner based on a prior order dated 28th November 2024 in Writ Petition No. 8532 of 2023. The petitioner argued that the NRI and Management quotas reduced the merit pool and that the reduction of seats for DNH (from 63 to 55) and Daman & Diu (from 62 to 55) lacked Central Government approval.
  • Respondent Submissions:
  • Respondent No. 5 (NAMO Society) argued that it had been restructured as an autonomous society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with seat allocation and fee structure decided independently.
  • Cited Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act (now Section 28 of the NMC Act) as applicable only to increase in admission capacity, not to seat allocation.
  • NMC affidavit (16th Jan 2025) stated that reservation policy is the exclusive domain of the Government of India, not the NMC.
  • Highlighted Supreme Court precedent protecting autonomous societies’ self‑financing models.
  • Noted that the Merger Act (2019) preserves pre‑merger reservation percentages, so SC reservation remains one seat for DNH.
  • Petitioner’s Position: Emphasised that the reduction in merit pool seats and introduction of NRI/Management quotas deprived her of a seat, despite being second in the SC merit list.

Final Outcome

  • The Court found no merit in the petition, observing that the petitioner was aware of the prospectus terms, participated in the centralized admission counseling process, and could not now challenge the seat distribution.
  • The contention to combine DNH and Daman & Diu seat pools was rejected, as statutory reservation percentages remained unchanged post‑merger.
  • The Court held that the autonomous society’s prospectus was valid, no Central Government sanction was required for seat allocation changes, and NMC approval was not applicable.
  • The earlier interim order keeping a seat vacant was deemed inapplicable to the present case.
  • Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Topics: Admission Quotas, Reservation Policy