Manipur High Court Rejects Selective Application of Counselling SOP to Protect Student Rights

The Manipur High Court has dismantled the state's rigid interpretation of medical admission guidelines, ruling that procedural technicalities cannot be weaponized to block meritorious students from subsequent rounds of MBBS counselling. In a significant intervention, the Court clarified that choice-filling limitations applicable to one round do not create a permanent bar for future stages, ensuring that inadvertent administrative errors do not derail medical careers.

A single-judge bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma heard the challenge against an order that rejected a candidate's plea to modify her seat category due to a clerical error during registration. The Court scrutinized the interplay between different clauses of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to determine if a candidate is bound by a singular seat choice throughout the entire admission process.

Key Takeaways

Counselling SOPs Not Static

Procedural guidelines for medical admissions must be read as a whole, ensuring that round-specific restrictions do not unfairly penalize students in subsequent stages.

Protection Against Administrative Rigidity

State authorities cannot take a 'hyper-technical' view of clerical errors, especially when a student seeks rectification well within the registration window.

Advocate General's Constitutional Role

Under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, the Advocate General represents the 'whole' of the State, including its citizens, and should advise against patent injustices meted out by the government.

Judicial Intervention in Merit Protection

Constitutional Courts will exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Constitution of India, 1950 to prevent meritorious students from becoming victims of 'State malice' or procedural lapses.

Interpretation of Admission Guidelines

The dispute centered on the Interpretation of the Notification dated 10.08.2026 and its accompanying SOP. The State argued that once a seat type was 'permanently locked' under Para A:4 of the SOP, no modification could be entertained. However, the Court found this interpretation to be selective and misleading when compared against other provisions.

The Court has following directions:

"The State respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the ongoing 3rd 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. In case the 3rd round of counselling has already been concluded, a special 3rd round of counselling shall be conducted for the petitioner."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Ratio

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for medical counselling is an administrative instruction, not a statute, and must be interpreted harmoniously. A restriction on modifying choices within a specific round (Para A:4) cannot override the mandatory requirement for fresh choice-filling in subsequent rounds (Para A:14). Consequently, a candidate is entitled to exercise a different seat choice in a new round of counselling, regardless of the choice made in previous rounds.

Background

The petitioner, an OBC candidate, applied for MBBS counselling after qualifying in NEET-UG 2026. While she intended to apply for a 'Management seat' at Shija Academy of Health Sciences (SAHS), a clerical error at the cyber cafe resulted in her application being ticked as 'State seat'. She immediately sought rectification via a representation, which was supported by the Director of Medical Education but rejected by the Joint Secretary (Health & FW) on the grounds that the SOP prohibited seat changes once locked.

The State respondents relied on several precedents, including Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of UP & Ors., Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh ( "2012 (7) SCC 433": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 811), and Divya vs. Union of India & Ors. ( "2024(1) SCC 448": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 968), to argue that schedules and categories cannot be changed mid-way. The Court distinguished these cases, noting that the petitioner was not seeking a relaxation of merit or a change in category (like EWS or Caste), but simply exercising her right to fresh choice-filling for a new round as permitted by the SOP itself. The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Preety Soibam vs. State of Manipur & 2 Ors., where it held that a preference for 'SAHS' could include both State and Management quotas.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(C) No. 722 of 2026 with MC(WP(C) No. 749 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MNHC:216
Case Title: Nishita Laishram -Versus- The State of Manipur & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. S. Johnson, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lenin Hijam, A.G. assisted by Ms. Sanya Shangari, Adv.; Mr. HS. Paonam, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAN) 91