‘Rules can’t change mid-game’: Rajasthan High Court scraps costly bank guarantee for super specialty medical courses

Justice Nupur Bhati said the change imposed a new financial burden retrospectively, which is legally unsustainable.

“A circular cannot be applied retrospectively… applying it would amount to altering the rules of the game mid-way,” the court said on March 25.

Court’s key observations

• The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition in terms of earlier rulings, extending protection to similarly placed candidates.
• The high court came down heavily against the state’s move, noting that the bank guarantee condition was introduced after NEET-SS results were declared and when counselling was imminent.
• The court said that such a change imposed a new financial burden retrospectively, which is legally unsustainable.
• The move violated the principle of legitimate expectation, as earlier batches were not subjected to such requirements, said the court.
• “The instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated March 19, 2026 passed in the case of Dr Ishant Kumar Sahu,” the court said.

What is the case about?

• The petitioners, young postgraduate doctors, challenged a state government order dated January 28, which introduced a requirement to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the service bond amount as a precondition for pursuing courses under National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Super Specialty (NEET-SS), Institute of National Importance Super-Specialty (INI-SS), senior residency, or fellowships.
• The petitioners contend that the said condition is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their fundamental and legal rights.
• The petitioners had successfully cleared NEET-PG and were admitted to postgraduate courses in government medical colleges in Rajasthan under the all-India and state quota.
• At the time of admission, they were required to execute service bonds undertaking to serve the state upon completion of their courses.
• The said change has been introduced after the declaration of NEET-SS results and at a stage when the counselling process is imminent, thereby impermissibly altering the “rules of the game” midstream.
• The petitioners submit that such retrospective imposition of an onerous financial condition is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation, particularly when similarly situated candidates of earlier batches were not subjected to any such requirement.
• They argued that at the time of their admission and throughout earlier policy frameworks, particularly under circulars dated April 1, 2025 and July 12, 2022, no such financial burden existed.
• Instead, candidates were only required to give an undertaking to serve the state after completing their studies.

Reliance on earlier judgments

• Justice Bhati relied heavily on prior rulings, particularly:

1. Dr Yash Vardhan vs State of Rajasthan (February 16, 2026)
2. Dr Ishant Kumar Sahu vs State of Rajasthan (March 19, 2026)

• These judgments had already held that candidates would be governed by the policy in force at the time the recruitment or admission process began, not by subsequent changes.
• The Rajasthan High Court noted that key milestones, such as advertisement issuance, application submission, examination and result declaration, had all occurred before the January 28 circular, making its retrospective application unjustified.
• In Dr Yash Vardhan vs State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court dealt with doctors who had applied for senior residency or super-specialty opportunities before the state introduced the January 28, 2026, circular mandating a bank guarantee.
• The court held that this new condition could not be applied retrospectively, as the candidates had entered the process under the earlier April 1, 2025 policy, which required only an undertaking.
• It emphasised that a recruitment or admission process begins with the advertisement and that imposing new conditions later would amount to “changing the rules of the game mid-way.”
• In Dr Ishant Kumar Sahu vs State of Rajasthan, the court applied the same principle to candidates who had already cleared NEET-SS and received allotments before the new circular came into force.
• It ruled that since all crucial stages- exam, results, and allotment occurred prior to January 28, 2026, the candidates would be governed by the earlier policy and not required to furnish a bank guarantee.
• The court also directed authorities to facilitate admission by transferring original documents and allowed candidates to submit undertakings to fulfil their service bond obligations.

Relief granted to petitioners

• While disposing of the petition, the court directed that the petitioners would be governed by the earlier policy dated April 1, 2025.
• Their admission and participation in super-specialty courses would not be hindered by the new bank guarantee condition.
• The state must facilitate the release and transfer of original documents to enable timely admission.
• The Rajasthan High Court also recorded that petitioners were willing to provide undertakings to fulfil their service bond obligations, ensuring that public service commitments remain intact.

Why this matters

• The ruling is significant for thousands of medical aspirants, as it reinforces the principle that rules governing admissions cannot be altered mid-process.
• Protects candidates from unexpected financial burdens imposed after they have already participated in a selection process.
• Balances the state’s interest in enforcing service bonds with the rights of doctors to pursue higher education without arbitrary hurdles.

Conclusion

• By striking down the retrospective imposition of a bank guarantee requirement, the Rajasthan High Court has sent a clear message against administrative arbitrariness.
• The judgment underscores that fairness in public processes must prevail, especially where careers and livelihoods are at stake.