SC will review the legality of converting in-service quota unfilled reservation seats to General Category Admissions, NEET

The Supreme Court in Shaline Agrawal v. Madhya Pradesh State and Or observed in Madhya Pradesh State “Service Candidates” request for special leave seeking not to move unfilled seats of reserved category from in-service compartment to open/direct the category the court issued the notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh.
the High Court had refused to consider the written petition submitted by the “serving candidates” in which, after relying on Rules 4 and 14 of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, had argued that the vacant seats of SC / ST / The OBC/EWS category under 30% of the reserved compartment reserved for “in-service candidates” cannot be converted/transferred to the pool of the open/direct category, the same could only be converted to the pool of the open/direct category, before this was first offered to candidates of the general/unqualified category within the same group/compartment of “candidates in service” was supported by them in the judgment offensive.
Applicants, after referring to Sections 4 and 14 of the Admission Rules, argued that unfilled seats in the service compartment of the Reserved Category cannot be transferred to the Open/Direct Category and that the mix of seats between two compartments was inadmissible in the High Court. was argued in court that in the absence of any express enabling provision, the action of the respondents to move the seats from one compartment (in-service category to another, i.e. the open/direct category) is bad in law and that the rules of admission must be subject to purposive interpretation.
Rule 4 of the Admissions Rules dealt with the methodology for filling vacancies by category and Rule 14 of the Admissions Rules provides for reserving 30 vacancies for in-service applicants in the degree/PG courses.
The bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed:
In other words, in subrule (2) of rule 14, it is mentioned the vacancies of subrule (1) of rule 14(1). A careful reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 14 leaves no room. for any doubt that ‘vacancies’ refers to all vacancies and not vacancies limited to ‘serving candidates’ in our view vacancy in subrule (1) refers to all vacancies of all subjects available in government and private. In medical schools as well as in dental hospitals, at the cost of repeating the argument advanced by the plaintiffs learned lawyer, the bench declared that we were unable to convince ourselves.
The bench consisting of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli in a contested judgment dated April 11, 2022 considered the SLP against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The Court had previously declined to consider the plea against challenging the same order with due regard to the stage of the admissions process. He further maintained that he was not seeking an application for the current academic year, but for the right to the following year, as submitted by the on-duty candidate’s attorney.
The bench further declined to award redress.