Merely Challenging AFMS Training Rules Is No Ground For Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Rejects Army Medical Officers’ Plea For NEET PG Eligibility
The Court held that interim relief cannot have the effect of suspending Training Rules, 2025; noted that officers had opportunity to appear under earlier eligibility framework.
The Delhi High Court has held that merely challenging the validity of a policy or statutory rules does not entitle an applicant to interim relief, particularly when such relief would effectively suspend the operation of the impugned rules. The Court refused to grant interim relief to two Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) officers seeking permission to apply and appear for the NEET PG Examination, 2026 under the earlier eligibility criteria.
The Bench dismissed the petitions filed by Major Jayati Chandra and Major Eshaan Segan challenging orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had declined interim relief in their favour. The petitioners had sought permission to participate in the NEET PG Examination, 2026 as per the eligibility criteria under the Training Rules, 2018.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna and Justice Vinod Kumar noting that the Training Rules, 2025 were already in operation observed, observed, “…merely on account of the fact that the petitioners have challenged the said Rules, is no ground for granting any interim relief in favour of the petitioners. In case any interim relief as prayed for is granted, the same would have the effect of suspending the effect of the said Training Rules 2025, which cannot be done, when the final adjudication in this regard is still pending before the learned AFT”.
Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC appeared for the petitioner and Kartik Sharma, GP appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners contended that under the 2018 Rules, Short Service Commission (SSC) officers of the AFMS were eligible to apply for postgraduate courses after completion of 4 to 10 years of physical service. However, the subsequent Training and Professional Progression Rules, 2025 reduced the eligibility window for SSC officers to 4 to 7 years.
Rejecting the plea for interim protection, the Court noted that the petitioners had entered service in 2017 and 2018 and had become eligible to appear for NEET PG from 2022 and 2023 respectively under the earlier rules.
The Court further took note of the AFT’s finding that the petitioners had not secured a PG seat earlier either due to personal choice or failure in the examination process.
The Court also noted that the matters are listed before the AFT on August 28, 2026, even if the petitioners ultimately succeed before the Tribunal, they would continue to have the opportunity to appear for the NEET PG Examination until 2028. Finding no error in the AFT’s orders, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions.
Cause Title: Major Jayati Chandra v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5186-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Prateek Arora, Advocate.
Respondents: Kartik Sharma, GP, Major Anis Muralidhar (Army) Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Apurva Singh, Advocates with Major A.S. Buttar.