The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued a notice regarding a plea filed by NEET-UG 2024 aspirants seeking a refund of ₹10 lakh each forfeited by the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) after they cancelled their allotted seats in private medical colleges. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal heard the matter and directed the state government to respond by November 4, 2025.
According to the petition, the aspirants appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 examination and secured seats at RKDF Medical College, Bhopal, under the Unreserved (UR)/NRI quota in the first round of counselling held on September 15, 2024. Each student was required to deposit ₹10 lakh immediately upon seat allotment as per counselling rules. However, the petitioners later received admission offers from medical colleges in Maharashtra and subsequently applied to cancel their seats at RKDF Medical College. Written intimation was submitted to both the Director of Medical Education (DME) and the college dean on October 1, 2024, before the second round of counselling closed on October 5, 2024. Despite the timely communication, the DME issued an order dated October 30, 2024, declaring that the ₹10 lakh deposits made by each candidate stood forfeited under Rule 12(7)(ga) of the Madhya Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Determination of Fees) Act, 2007 (amended in 2018).
Petitioners Challenge Rule Interpretation
The plea, led by Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi along with advocates Poonam Sonkar, Prakhar Naveriya, and Alka Singh, argues that Rule 12(7)(ga) has been misinterpreted by the authorities. According to the petitioners, the rule stipulates forfeiture only when a candidate withdraws after the final round of counselling and the seat remains vacant. Since their withdrawal took place before the next round began, the rule should not have applied. The petition further claims that the forfeiture clause was meant to prevent last-minute vacancies, not to penalise students who followed due process by informing authorities in advance.
Plea for Refund
On January 7, 2025, the petitioners submitted a written representation requesting a refund of the forfeited ₹10 lakh but received no response from the DME. Alleging arbitrary enforcement of the rule, the students approached the High Court seeking relief. Their counsel maintained that the DME’s decision “lacked fairness and violated the principles of natural justice,” as the seats could have been reallocated in subsequent counselling rounds.
Background of the Case
Rule 12(7)(ga) was introduced to ensure that private medical institutions do not face vacant seats at the end of the counselling process. However, the petitioners contend that its application in this case goes against the spirit of the rule, as they had withdrawn their admissions early enough to allow seat reallocation. The case, titled Tejas Ravish Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP 35132/2025), has now been listed for hearing on November 4, 2025. If the court finds merit in the petitioners’ argument, the verdict could set a precedent for future NEET-UG counselling refund disputes in Madhya Pradesh and other states.
