Judgment : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the controversy which engages the attention of this Court, albeit multifaceted, is predominantly qua the counseling notification dated 01.04.2025 issued by the respondents. Inasmuch as the issues raised in all these writ petitions rest substantially upon common questions of law and fact, this Court, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, has considered it appropriate to take up S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5584/2025 titled Dr. Srinivas R G and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Others , as the lead matter for adjudication and factual reference. It is, however, deemed apposite to clarify that any divergence in the factual averments or narrative details contained in the respective petitions forming part of this batch shall not affect or dilute the adjudication of the legal issues which fall for determination. The present judgment shall, therefore, govern and apply to all connected writ petitions on a mutatis mutandis basis, save and except to the extent of such factual distinctions as may bear no material relevance to the core questions of law addressed herein. 2. For the sake of clarity and completeness, the reliefs/prayers as sought by the petitioners in the lead petition are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso: "(i) the counselling notification dated 01.04.2025 issued by the respondent and all consequential actions in pursuance to the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii). that the issue for merging of the leftover seats into Principal's pool may kindly be declared as ultra vires and illegal; (iii) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners." SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS: 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners, being aggrieved by the arbitrary, unjust and illegal action of the respondent–State authorities in conducting merely a single round of counselling in pursuance to the notification dated 01.04.2025, for allocation of Senior Residency seats, have been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It was contended that the impugned action tantamounts to altering the "rules of the game" midway, without any rationale, transparency or justification. 4. It was contended that the impugned action tantamounts to altering the "rules of the game" midway, without any rationale, transparency or justification. Further, learned counsel had contended that the petitioners had duly appeared in NEET-PG Examination, 2021, and were declared successful. Pursuant thereto, they secured admission in postgraduate courses in various specialities in Government Medical Colleges of the State of Rajasthan under both the All India as well as the State quota. Moreover, at the inception, as a pre-condition of admission, the petitioners also executed bonds and deposited their original documents, undertaking to render compulsory service as Senior Residents, for two years post completion of their postgraduate degree, or in the alternative, to pay a sum of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) in lieu thereof. 5. Consecutively, learned counsel had apprised the Court with the vital series of events, which are essential for adjudication of the present lis and submitted that the petitioners, upon completion of their postgraduate courses in January, 2025, became eligible for Senior Residency. Subsequently, vide notification dated 13.03.2025, a Counselling Board was constituted for allocation of Senior Residency seats strictly on the basis of the merit scored as per the NEET-PG scores. 6. Thereafter, vide notification dated 17.03.2025, a significant departure was made by introducing an additional criterion of “spouse-cum-merit based choice system” for allocation of seats. The said notification dated 17.03.2025 was promptly challenged, and upon judicial scrutiny, was withdrawn by the State vide order dated 26.03.2025. It was further submitted that in the interregnum, between 29.03.2025 and 30.03.2025, the NEET Super Specialty Examination was conducted, and the result thereof was declared on 30.04.2025. On 01.04.2025, in pursuance of the Bond Policy of the State, a counselling scheme was notified, mandating compulsory choice-filling of all available options by the candidates. The Instruction Booklet released contemporaneously classified the candidates into the following three distinct categories: i. Non-service category candidates of 2021 Batch; ii. In-service category candidates of 2021 Batch; iii. All other eligible candidates, not covered in categories i. and ii., who could be considered for Senior Residency after allocation of seats to 2021 Batch candidates, at the level of Principals of the concerned Colleges. 7. It was then submitted that it is an admitted position that the total number of Senior Residency seats was 1540. All other eligible candidates, not covered in categories i. and ii., who could be considered for Senior Residency after allocation of seats to 2021 Batch candidates, at the level of Principals of the concerned Colleges. 7. It was then submitted that it is an admitted position that the total number of Senior Residency seats was 1540. It is further submitted that subsequent to 24.05.2025, when examinations were conducted by premier institutions such as AIIMS and PGI, Chandigarh, for similar courses, a substantial number of vacancies arose in the Senior Residency seats across the aforesaid categories. Insofar as the category of allotments by Principals is concerned, counselling was conducted on multiple dates i.e., 01.07.2025, 04.07.2025, 07.07.2025, 08.07.2025, 09.07.2025, 14.07.2025, and 26.07.2025, whereby approximately 50% to 59% of the total seats came to be dealt with. It is further evident that these seats largely pertained to the unutilized quota left by the 2021 Batch candidates in various Government Medical Colleges. 8. In this backdrop, it was contended that the grievance of the petitioners is that under the Instruction Booklet, once a candidate had exercised the option of choice and accepted allotment on the basis of merit, such candidate was precluded from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling. It was contended that this rigid restriction was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable, inasmuch as it denied the petitioners the legitimate opportunity to be considered for better or more meritorious placements in the subsequent rounds, despite large numbers of seats having fallen vacant. 9. Moreover, such prohibition has the effect of rendering them, figuratively, as "birds in a cage", as once an option is exercised, they are permanently excluded from further rounds of counselling, even though more than 50% of the seats continue to remain vacant. It is further submitted that this stipulation runs contrary to the consistent past practice adopted by the respondents, wherein repeated rounds of counselling were permitted, and candidates were allowed to participate until the seats were fully exhausted. 10. Learned counsel further argued that denial of participation in subsequent rounds of counselling not only violates the principles of fairness and transparency but also results in the compromise of merit, as demonstrated in several instances. 10. Learned counsel further argued that denial of participation in subsequent rounds of counselling not only violates the principles of fairness and transparency but also results in the compromise of merit, as demonstrated in several instances. It was urged that the category of Principal-level allotments (third category), which was not intended for 2021 Batch candidates, is being misused by the respondents to reallocate Senior Residency seats on extraneous considerations such as spouse preference, ill-health, or other illegitimate grounds, none of the same bear nexus to merit. 11. In view of the above, the petitioners have challenged the impugned policy on the following principal grounds: 11.1 That the said policy is arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultra vires to the fundamental rights of the petitioners as enshrined under Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as once a candidate has accepted a seat on the basis of merit, he is thereafter prohibited from participating in subsequent rounds, despite a large number of seats continuing to remain vacant. 11.2 That the impugned stipulation runs contrary to the past practice consistently followed by the respondents, wherein repeated counselling rounds were permitted in the larger interest of justice and equity. 11.3 That non-participation of meritorious candidates in further counselling rounds directly compromises merit, thereby diluting the sacrosanct principle that in matters of medical education and appointments, merit must be the sole and determinative criterion. 11.4 That the respondents, under the garb of Principal-level allotments, are reallocating Senior Residency seats in a non- transparent and arbitrary manner, on considerations other than merit, such as spouse posting, medical exigencies, and other extraneous grounds, thereby subverting the principle of equality. 12. Thence, it was submitted that in matters pertaining to medical education and Senior Residency, the law is well-settled that merit must remain the sole and sacrosanct criterion for allocation, and no other extraneous considerations, including spouse preference or otherwise, can be imported into the selection process. In support of the contentions made, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Nishant Gopal: DBSAW No. 1311/2022, Uttam and Ors. Vs. Muncipal Council, Darwaha and Ors.: (1973) 2 SLR 286, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society Vs. Union of India and Ors.: (1992) 4 SCC 477 and Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerela and Ors. Dr. Nishant Gopal: DBSAW No. 1311/2022, Uttam and Ors. Vs. Muncipal Council, Darwaha and Ors.: (1973) 2 SLR 286, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society Vs. Union of India and Ors.: (1992) 4 SCC 477 and Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerela and Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 799 . SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS: 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Vigyan Shah, has vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the impugned scheme is a valid exercise of policy framed by the State in larger public interest. It was submitted that medical education in Government institutions is imparted at highly subsidized and concessional rates. In order to safeguard the interests of the public at large, and particularly the residents of the State of Rajasthan, the scheme of compulsory bond, retention of original documents, and mandatory rendering of Senior Residency service for a period of two years has been formulated. The object of this policy is to ensure that the State is able to derive reasonable service from doctors who have been beneficiaries of subsidized medical education, before they embark upon their independent professional careers. 14. Learned counsel further contended that Senior Residency is not an end in itself, but only a transitional stage and a statutory requirement under the National Medical Commission Regulations. Completion of Senior Residency equips a candidate with necessary teaching and clinical experience, thereby making him eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. In this light, Senior Residency is designed as a stepping stone in the career of a medical postgraduate. 15. It was submitted that the duration of Senior Residency being only two years, the policy in question was consciously framed so as to absorb the entire batch of 2021 candidates in a systematic and timely manner. The counselling and allotment process was structured in such a way that the seats of the 2021 batch could be allocated efficiently, without leaving the process open-ended. Once a candidate, whether from service or non-service category of the year 2021 batch, has exercised his option and secured an allotment, he cannot be permitted to seek change or revision of his choice under any circumstance. This restriction forms part of a bonafide policy aimed at preventing an unending cycle of counselling rounds which, if permitted, would render the entire scheme uncertain and incapable of closure. 16. This restriction forms part of a bonafide policy aimed at preventing an unending cycle of counselling rounds which, if permitted, would render the entire scheme uncertain and incapable of closure. 16. It was further contended that the year 2021 batch was admitted on the basis of a specially structured policy involving higher fees, which itself was designed keeping in mind the necessity of ensuring that the said batch is accommodated within the residency scheme in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, the impugned stipulations are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in nature, but rather the outcome of a conscious policy decision. 17. It was submitted that certain vacancies have arisen on account of unavoidable circumstances such as candidates shifting to reputed institutions like AIIMS, payment of the bond amount by certain candidates to join private institutions, or similar exigencies. However, the creation of such vacancies does not, in any manner, render the policy arbitrary. Moreover, the scheme was never intended to ensure that every single vacancy is exhausted through multiple rounds of counselling, but rather to regulate the residency process in a manner that is predictable, efficient, and consistent with the larger objective of public service. 18. Learned counsel further argued that in matters of policy, the scope of judicial interference is extremely limited. Unless a policy is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, fraud, or is contrary to public policy, this Court ought not to interfere. It was further contended that it is a settled principle, that the Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of policy choices made by the executive, particularly when such policy pertains to regulation of medical education and public health. 19. It was lastly contended that all Government Medical Colleges in the State are at par, and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners that merit has been compromised or that one institution is superior to another, is wholly misconceived. The impugned policy seeks to ensure uniformity, certainty, and timely absorption of the 2021 batch into Senior Residency, and in absence of any demonstrable arbitrariness or illegality, no interference is called for. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 20. Having heard learned counsel representing all the parties, upon an assiduous scanning of the material available on record, and taking note of the judgments cited at Bar, this Court proceeds to decide the controversy in the following terms: 21. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 20. Having heard learned counsel representing all the parties, upon an assiduous scanning of the material available on record, and taking note of the judgments cited at Bar, this Court proceeds to decide the controversy in the following terms: 21. Facts not in dispute: 21.1 It is an admitted position that the petitioners, having successfully cleared the NEET-PG Examination, 2021, were admitted to postgraduate medical courses in various Government Medical Colleges of Rajasthan. As a condition of such admission, they executed compulsory service bonds, mandating them to serve as Senior Residents for a period of two years, or in the alternative, to pay the stipulated bond amount. Upon completion of their postgraduate studies in January, 2025, the petitioners became eligible for Senior Residency. 21.2 The respondent–State, vide notification dated 13.03.2025, constituted a Counselling Board for allocation of Senior Residency seats based on NEET-PG merit. By subsequent notification dated 17.03.2025, the criterion of ‘spouse-cum-merit’ was introduced but was later withdrawn on 26.03.2025. Thereafter, on 01.04.2025, the respondent-State issued a fresh scheme of counselling under the Bond Policy, mandating compulsory choice filling and classifying candidates into three categories, with a total of 1540 seats available. 21.3 It is further not in dispute that despite large-scale vacancies arising subsequent to May, 2025 on account of candidates shifting to AIIMS, PGI and other institutions, the impugned scheme prohibited candidates of the year 2021 batch from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling once they had exercised their initial option. As a result, while approximately 50–59% of the seats were eventually dealt with, a substantial number of seats remained unutilized, even as meritorious candidates like the petitioners were denied further opportunity of participation. In the first round of counselling for the 2021 batch, as per the Instruction Booklet, allotments were made separately to in-service and non-service candidates. Thereafter, the remaining pool of seats was transferred to the “Principal’s category.” At this stage, several instances came to light where merit was overlooked, and allotments were made on extraneous considerations such as spouse posting and medical grounds, thereby defeating the principle of merit. 22. The record further reveals that certain vacancies subsequently arose on account of candidates liquidating their bond, joining premier institutions like AIIMS, or pursuing other alternatives. 22. The record further reveals that certain vacancies subsequently arose on account of candidates liquidating their bond, joining premier institutions like AIIMS, or pursuing other alternatives. The cause of action for the present petitions arose when the petitioners challenged the notification and the categorisation created by the Instruction Booklet, inter alia, on the ground that such categorisation resulted in compromise of merit, arbitrary treatment, and favouritism in allocation of seats, including allocation to candidates of subsequent batches at premier locations like Jaipur, while more meritorious candidates of the 2021 batch were excluded. 23. During the currency of the petitions, this Court ordered and warranted an opinion from a Medical Board Committee of are experts and the most appropriate persons to address the present issue. Accordingly, a report dated 14.08.2025 was furnished before the Court. For the sake of handiness and convenience, the relevant extract from the same is reproduced herein below: "The committee is of the opinion that opportunity should be given to those SR candidates of Batch 2021 who have been allotted seat by the Central Counseling Board 2025 to participate in counseling of vacant post advertised by principal of individual medical colleges. The Committee is of the opinion that transfer of candidates from one medical college to another medical college on any ground should not be allowed to keep the merit as sole mode of selection." 24. This Court finds considerable force in the said recommendation of the Expert Committee. The record bears out that, in a number of cases, allotments were made on grounds of spouse or ill-health, which effectively compromised the principle of merit. Thence, it is opined that such deviations cannot be countenanced. Consequently, to the extent that the Instruction Booklet locks candidates out of subsequent rounds of counselling after their first allotment, and to the extent that it enables allotments to non-meritorious candidates under the Principal’s category on grounds other than merit, the policy is unsustainable in law. For the sake of handiness the relevant extract from the said information booklet is reproduced herein below: "I. All candidates who were admitted in D.M./M.Ch./M.D./M.S. course in the year 2021 and submitted a service bond under the non-service category and have passed the course or are going to pass out shortly shall participate in this allotment process (towards execution of service bond to Serve State Govt. for fixed duration of 2 years). II. for fixed duration of 2 years). II. All in-service candidates who were admitted in D.M./M.Ch./M.D./M.S. course in the year 2021 and have passed the course or are going to pass out shortly may also participate in this allotment process on the seats of Senior Residency. III. All candidates not covered at serial 1 and 2 above and eligible to pursue SR ship will be allowed on the seats of Senior Residency remaining vacant (after allotment to 2021 batch candidates), at the level of Principal of the concerned college. Entire allotment process of such other candidates will be carried out at the level of Principal of the concerned college only. All concerned candidates are required to get in touch with the concerned college for the same." 25. Having regard to the past practice of multi-round counselling, the opinion of the Expert Committee, the legitimate expectation of the candidates, the principles of transparency, fairness, and above all, the primacy of merit, this Court is of the considered view that the Instruction Booklet must be interpreted and read down in consonance with these principles. Therefore, candidates of the 2021 batch, both in-service and non-service, must be permitted to participate in further rounds of counselling, and cannot be excluded merely on the ground that they exercised choice once in the initial round. The process of counselling is required to be conducted with utmost transparency and sincerity. 26. As regards the Principal’s pool, if candidates of the 2021 batch remain unadjusted, they shall be given preference strictly on the basis of merit. Only thereafter, if seats remain vacant, may such seats be offered to candidates of other batches, again strictly on merit. Allotments based on considerations such as spouse posting, ill-health, or other extraneous grounds cannot be sustained and are expressly prohibited. 27. It is now a settled position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kevin Joy & Ors. v. The Government of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.106/2023), that medical seats are a national asset and that the counselling process must be regulated with the highest degree of fairness and transparency, with merit being the sole determinative criterion. Multi-round counselling is also consistently upheld as the mechanism to ensure that merit is not defeated by procedural rigidity. 28. v. The Government of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.106/2023), that medical seats are a national asset and that the counselling process must be regulated with the highest degree of fairness and transparency, with merit being the sole determinative criterion. Multi-round counselling is also consistently upheld as the mechanism to ensure that merit is not defeated by procedural rigidity. 28. It is equally trite that in matters pertaining to medical education and allied services, merit is the touchstone and the sole determinative criterion. In the dictum of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India: (1984) 3 SCC 654 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that excellence in the medical profession is a constitutional necessity, and merit cannot be compromised at the altar of other extraneous considerations. Similarly, in the ratio of AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS: (2002) 1 SCC 428 , it was held that dilution of merit in medical education has a cascading effect upon the quality of public healthcare. 29. Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society (supra): 16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in Registration by introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, Mr. Jaitley the learned Counsel has submitted that the DDA and/or Central Government do not intend to challenge the decision of the High Court and the impugned memorandum of January 20,1990 has since been withdrawn. We therefore feel that in the facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should have been given to the registered Group Housing Socieites, if necessary, by way of a public notice. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 30. We therefore feel that in the facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should have been given to the registered Group Housing Socieites, if necessary, by way of a public notice. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 30. Accordingly, this Court holds that the stipulation contained in the Instruction Booklet dated 01.04.2025, to the extent it prohibits candidates of the 2021 batch from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling after exercising their initial choice, is arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled principle that merit must remain the sole criterion in medical admissions and appointments as held in the ratio of Kevin Joy & Ors. (Supra) 31. In light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the present batch of petitions and issues the following directions: 31.1 The candidates of NEET-PG Batch 2021 shall be permitted to participate in subsequent rounds of counselling for Senior Residency strictly on the basis of merit. 31.2 The remaining vacancies shall first be exhausted by allocation to the 2021 batch candidates, both service and non-service, as per merit. 31.3 Only thereafter may such seats be allotted to candidates of other batches, and that too solely on the basis of merit. 31.4 Extraneous criteria such as spouse posting, medical grounds or any other consideration dehors merit shall not prevail over merit. 32. This Court also records its gratitude to the Expert Committee of senior doctors who rendered their valuable opinion in the matter and marked their presence before this Court through video conferencing. For the removal of doubts, it is made explicit that the furnishing of such expert opinion, when called for by this Court in accordance with past practice, shall not be construed in any manner so as to occasion prejudice, adverse inference, or coercive action against the members of the Committee concerned. 33. In view of the aforementioned discussion and findings, and taking note of the Expert Committee Opinion and the settled position of law, the present batch of petitions is allowed , with afore-stated directions, to be complied with pronto. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.