The Bombay High Court has made a significant observation, stating that a petition challenging specific admission rules for alternative medicine courses presents a strong and arguable case. The case, filed by a Pune-based student, contests provisions that prevent high-scoring students from securing seats in better colleges during the stray vacancy rounds.
What is the Admission Rule Being Challenged?
The controversy centers around Clause 11.2.9.1 of the information brochure governing admissions to courses like BAMS, BUMS, and BHMS. According to the established Central Admission Process (CAP), after three main CAP rounds, stray vacancy rounds are conducted to fill any remaining empty seats. However, the challenged clause explicitly states that candidates who have already joined or been assigned a seat in any of the first three CAP rounds are not eligible to participate in these final stray rounds.
The 'Fortuitous Circumstances' Creating a Dichotomy
The petitioner, represented by advocate Rahul Kamerkar, brought a critical sequence of events to the court's attention. It was submitted that CAP Round II and Round III for these alternative medicine courses were finalized even before the CAP process for MBBS admissions had begun. This scheduling created a unique situation.
Many high-ranking candidates who had secured seats in top alternative medicine colleges later also gained admission to their preferred MBBS courses. As a result, they vacated their previously held BAMS/BHMS seats. Because of Clause 11.2.9.1, students like the petitioner, who had to settle for less desirable colleges in the initial rounds, were barred from competing for these newly vacated, better seats in the stray rounds. In a twist of fate, these premium seats were then offered to candidates with lower scores who had not been assigned any seat in the earlier CAP rounds.
Court's Directive and the Path Forward
In its order, uploaded on Saturday, November 18, 2025, the court noted that these were fortuitous circumstances and that the clause was creating a dichotomy in the admission process. The bench explicitly acknowledged the petitioner's strong argument against the disqualification clause.
As a next step, the High Court has permitted the petitioner to amend and submit a fresh petition, introducing additional grounds and pleadings to strengthen the case further. This development opens a significant legal debate on the fairness of admission procedures for professional courses in India.
