Delhi High Court: In the writ petitions challenging Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)’s refusal to grant interim relief, to Short Service Commission (SSC) Medical Officers pending challenge to validity of the Training and Professional Progression Rules for Medical/Non-Technical Officers of Armed Forces Medical Services, 2025 (Training Rules 2025), which reduced the eligibility period for appearing in the NEET PG examination from 10 years to 7 years of physical service, the Division Bench of Mini Pushkarna* and Vinod Kumar, JJ., affirmed the impugned order wherein it was held that a mere challenge to the validity of the Training Rules 2025 does not establish a prima facie case for interim relief that would effectively suspend the operation of the Rules while their validity of NEET PG eligibility for SSC Medical Officers remains pending before the AFT for final adjudication.
Factual Matrix
The petitioners were SSC Medical Officers serving in the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS). They approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the AFT’s orders refusing to grant interim relief permitting them to apply for and appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2026 on a priority basis.
Under the Training Rules for Medical/Non-Technical Officers of the Armed Forces Medical Services, 2018 (Training Rules 2018), SSC officers were eligible to apply for postgraduate medical courses after completing 4 years and up to 10 years of physical service. However, these rules were superseded by the Training Rules 2025, which reduced the eligibility window for SSC officers from 4—10 years to 4—7 years of physical service.
The petitioners contended that the reduction in the eligibility period adversely affected their opportunity to pursue postgraduate medical education. Since the last date for submitting the NEET PG application form was 30 June 2026, they sought interim permission to participate in the examination pending adjudication of their challenge before the AFT.
The respondents argued that the Training Rules 2025 had been notified in November 2025, that the petitioners were aware of the amended policy, and that they would still have an opportunity to appear for NEET PG until 2028 if they ultimately succeeded in their substantive challenge.
Issue for Determination
Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief permitting them to apply for and appear in NEET PG Examination, 2026 despite the operation of the Training Rules, 2025.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioners had entered service in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Consequently, they became eligible to appear for NEET PG after completing 4 years of service, meaning they could have appeared from 2022 and 2023 onwards.
The Court noted the findings recorded by the AFT that the petitioners “have not been able to secure a seat in the NEET PG Course, either due to their personal choice and not applying earlier or on account of their failure in the examination process”. Agreeing with the Tribunal, the Court observed that merely because the petitioners have challenged the policy, there is no prima facie case for any interim relief in their favour. Further, granting such relief would effectively suspend the operation of the Training Rules 2025 while their validity remains pending before the AFT.
The Court stated that no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the substantive matters were already listed before the AFT on 28 August 2026 and if the petitioners ultimately succeeded in their challenge, they would still have the opportunity to appear in NEET PG up to the year 2028.
Decision
The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order on not finding any legal infirmity in the AFT’s approach. Since the Training Rules, 2025 were operative and the petitioners had alternative opportunities available if they ultimately succeeded, there was no justification for permitting them to appear in NEET PG 2026 by way of interim orders.
The Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the orders of the AFT’s refusing interim relief.
[Major Jayati Chandra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8370/2026 & W.P.(C) 8372/2026, decided on 29-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prateek Arora, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP for UOI Major Anis Muralidhar (Army) Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. with Major A.S. Buttar and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Lt. Col. Varun Kumar, Major Anish Murlidhar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
