Whether senior citizens should get a quota in medical admissions is a question for the executive or the legislature, the Allahabad High Court has said, upholding the rejection of a plea for a 1% senior citizens quota in NEET admissions because no enforceable right supports a writ of mandamus.
Lucknow: A special appeal by a senior citizen NEET aspirant, who wanted a direction to consider a 1% reservation or special quota for eligible senior citizens in MBBS and other medical courses admitted through NEET, has been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. It upheld a Single Judge’s order that treated the plea as a matter of policy [Ashok Bahar v. Union of India and Others].
On October 15, 2026 a Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla held that the representation did not rest on an enforceable right and that the appellant could take the matter up with the executive or the legislature.
Why no mandamus
Deputy Solicitor General and Senior Advocate S.B. Pandey represented the Union of India. Counsel for the National Testing Agency said the agency is only the examining body and is governed by the laws and policy on admissions, and the Bench noted that no provision for such a reservation exists at present. The Court deleted the National Medical Commission from the array of parties. The representation, it said, was not a statutory one and had been made to meet the prerequisites for a mandamus petition. It held:
“A writ of mandamus would lie if there is an enforceable right or a mandatory obligation upon the opposite parties”
No such right existed on the facts, the Bench concluded, so there was “no question of issuing a mandamus as prayed for”, and it recorded: “We do not find any error in the judgment of the writ court.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Urgently Lists NEET UG 2026 OMR Plea As NTA Set To Destroy Records
The writ petition and the appeal
In July 2026 the appellant filed Writ-C No. 7539 of 2026, asking for a mandamus to the Union government to consider and decide, by a reasoned and time-bound decision, his representation of June 23, 2026 on reservation for eligible senior citizens. His contention was that groups such as persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen and sportspersons get reservations or special benefits in medical admissions while senior citizens get none, and that the inaction was arbitrary.
The Single Judge dismissed the petition on August 24, 2026, regarding the subject as one of policy and declining to issue a mandamus. The appellant then filed Special Appeal No. 479 of 2026 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, arguing that Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796, which the Single Judge relied on, was distinguishable: the High Court in that case had directed the State to frame a policy, whereas he sought only that his representation be considered.
On any age limit
The Bench also left open the question of any age limit for these courses, observing that whether one should apply is for the executive or the legislature to decide, unless one already exists. The respondents could not point to any existing age limit. The position on age was settled earlier: on April 19, 2022 the National Medical Commission told the Supreme Court, in Jalaudheen T. v. MCI, that it does not insist on any upper age limit for NEET-UG, which had earlier been capped at 25 years for general candidates and 30 years for reserved categories.
The disposal
The Court issued no mandamus, struck the National Medical Commission from the array and disposed of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to take up the matter with the executive or the legislature.
What the order restates
The order restates the settled limit on mandamus: a court can direct a public authority to act only where a legal right or a mandatory duty exists, and a representation framed merely to lay the ground for a writ does not create one. The Court did not rule on the merits or desirability of a senior citizens quota, which it left to the executive and the legislature.
Case Title: Ashok Bahar v. Union of India and Others [Special Appeal No. 479 of 2026, arising from Writ-C No. 7539 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Gibran Akhtar Khan, Jyoti Singh Rana and Pankaj Dheer Singh Rana for the appellant; Deputy Solicitor General and Senior Advocate S.B. Pandey with Varun Pandey for the Union of India (Shashank Bhasin also listed); counsel for the National Testing Agency