NEET admissions protected from State cancellation, while limited Article 142 relief allowed only against available seats.

A prior final order protecting NEET-based admissions could not be overridden by a later State cancellation, so the protected students were allowed to continue their studies. For students admitted under the State Rules, the Court used Article 142 to permit a limited, merit-based adjustment against available and transferred seats, but refused to allow any increase in intake or carry forward admissions to the next academic year. The ruling balances equitable relief with adherence to settled medical admission norms and the interests of other meritorious candidates.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the admissions of students selected on the basis of NEET could be cancelled by the State despite the Supreme Court's earlier order protecting admissions already made on the basis of NEET; (ii) Whether students admitted under the State admission Rules could be accommodated by directing filling of available and transferred seats, and whether the Court should permit increase of seats or adjustment in the next academic year.

Issue (i): Whether the admissions of students selected on the basis of NEET could be cancelled by the State despite the Supreme Court's earlier order protecting admissions already made on the basis of NEET.

Analysis: The earlier final judgment had expressly protected admissions already made on the basis of NEET, and the interim order of the High Court had made the admissions only provisional until further orders. The State's later cancellation of the NEET-based admissions was inconsistent with that protection and could not override the Supreme Court's final decision. The State was bound to follow the Court's directions and could not unsettle protected admissions by its own subsequent decision.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the NEET-based admissions was impermissible, and the petitioners were entitled to continue their studies.

Issue (ii): Whether students admitted under the State admission Rules could be accommodated by directing filling of available and transferred seats, and whether the Court should permit increase of seats or adjustment in the next academic year.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between granting equitable relief to prevent injustice in the exceptional facts of the case and permitting directions that would violate settled medical admission norms. It invoked Article 142 to fashion a limited remedy: the seats transferred to the State quota and any unfilled seats could be filled from among the students admitted under the 2004 Rules on the basis of inter se merit. At the same time, the Court declined to order increase of seats or carry forward or telescope admissions into the next academic year, as that would prejudice other meritorious candidates and conflict with settled principles governing medical admissions.

Conclusion: Limited accommodation of the Rule-based students was permitted against available and transferred seats, but no increase of seats or next-year adjustment was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted a limited equitable solution that preserved the protected NEET admissions while also allowing a constrained merit-based adjustment for some students admitted under the State Rules, without expanding intake or displacing future candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: Where admissions have been expressly protected by a prior final order, a State cannot cancel them by a subsequent administrative decision, and in exceptional cases the Court may use Article 142 to balance equities only to the extent that settled admission norms and the rights of other meritorious candidates are not disturbed.

---