High Court directs treating delayed applicants as in‑service candidates and orders mop‑up counselling to conclude by March 18

A bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice T.M. Nadaf heard writ petitions by two in‑service medical officers challenging non‑consideration of their Form‑H caste confirmation and sought allotment from de‑categorised in‑service PG seats; the petitions arose from alleged delay in issuance of Form‑H and the consequent loss of opportunity in earlier rounds of PG‑NEET counselling.

The Court directed that both petitioners be treated as in‑service candidates and allowed them first preference, in order of merit, to choose from available regular PG seats and DNB seats reserved for Health and Family Welfare in‑service candidates. The Court emphasised that the petitioners had been deprived of benefits because Form‑H was not timely available through no fault of theirs and that the State had not disputed this factual position. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We therefore direct that both the petitioners herein shall also be treated as in‑service Candidates and will be offered first preference in the order of merit along with the petitioner of Writ Petition No.11014/2025, to choose from the available regular PG seats and seats for DNB Courses which are offered only to Health and Family Welfare in‑service Candidates. After such allotment of seats, remaining seats will be offered to the other regular PG Course Candidates in Mop‑up round." The Court also noted earlier interim directions that "the Karnataka Examinations Authority shall not start allotment process till after the next date of listing of this case nor shall it notify the list."

Background The writ petitions (W.P. No. 2386/2026) were filed by Dr. Sagar K. S. and Dr. Shalini Govind, both appointed as General Duty Medical Officers in June 2021 and having completed the requisite service periods to claim in‑service PG quota benefits. They applied for PG seats on 26.09.2025 but alleged that Tahsildars did not timely issue Form‑H (caste confirmation/caste‑cum‑income certificate) required to claim OBC/in‑service benefits after a Government circular of 08.05.2025 directed issuance of such certificates. As a result, the petitioners were treated as General category candidates in the first two counselling rounds and could not avail of the reduced qualifying percentile and seat reservation applicable to eligible OBC in‑service candidates.

A separate petition at the Dharwad Bench (W.P. No.110014/2025) had obtained an order—on concession by the Additional Advocate General—permitting an in‑service petitioner to be treated as such and to be offered first preference, in order of merit, to choose from available seats. The petitioners in the present matters sought similar reliefs: acceptance of their Form‑H and preferential offer of five specific de‑categorised in‑service seats that remained unfilled after the second round.

Respondents (State, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Directorate of Medical Education and Karnataka Examination Authority) contended that the petitioners had not qualified in the General category at the time of the earlier rounds and that once reserved in‑service seats were de‑categorised and merged into the general pool, individual re‑categorisation of particular seats was not feasible; allotment in the mop‑up round had to follow inter‑se merit. KEA identified certain vacant de‑categorised seats and sought directions to include them in mop‑up counselling.

The High Court accepted that delay in issuing Form‑H was not attributable to the petitioners, observed that earlier coordinate‑bench directions applied to similarly placed candidates, and directed that both petitioners be treated as in‑service candidates and be offered first preference in order of merit along with the petitioner in W.P. No.11014/2025. The writ petitions were disposed of with the additional directions that the mop‑up round be held before 05.03.2026, a stray vacancy round before 12.03.2026, and that the entire process conclude on or before 18.03.2026 (timelines stated as outer limits).

Case No.: WP No. 2386 of 2026 (EDN‑RES) Case Title: Dr. Sagar K S. & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri N. Khetty, Advocate; Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Sri Reuben Jacob, Additional Advocate General; Smt. Prathiba R.K., Additional Government Advocate (for R1–R3); Sri N.K. Ramesh, Advocate (for R4)