The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mode of allotment of seats, based on the impugned policy of compensation, exceeded the permissible limit of 50% of all available vacancies, violating the Constitutional scheme of providing reservation.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH)

This appeal has put to challenge, in substance, the mode of allotment of seats in various disciplines of medical sciences, in undergraduate courses, in the State of Bihar. The State Government has made a scheme for reservation of seats in favour of certain deprived sections of the society. It is the procedure adopted for allotment of seats, in the light of the scheme of the State Government, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

2. Let us, now, take note of the admitted facts governing the policy of allotment of seats in various disciplines of medical sciences under the impugned policy of the State Government.

3. Since the year 1997, Bihar Combined Competitive Entrance Examination Board (BCECE Board), constituted under Bihar Combined Competitive Entrance Examination Act, 1995, has been conducting, every year, Bihar Combined Competitive Entrance Examination, for selecting candidates in order to admit them in the first year graduate level professional courses in Medical, Engineering and Agriculture streams in various Institutions of the State of Bihar.

4. It was for the first time in the year 2013 that a single Eligibility –cum- Entrance Examination for admissions, in MBBS and BDS courses, on All India basis, had been conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi, known as NEET (UG)-2013.

5. The appellant herein, desirous of taking admission in BDS course, appeared in the National Eligibility Test–cum-Entrance Test, conducted by the CBSE and, having qualified in the said examination, she was placed in All India Merit List, at serial number 1132, in the general category.

6. By Advertisement No. BCECEB (UGMAC)-2013/10, dated 01.08.2013, Health Department, Government of Bihar invited online applications, for appearing in Under Graduate Medical Admission Counselling (UGMAC)-2013, from the candidates, whose Roll Numbers appeared in the merit-list based on NEET (UG)-2013. The Counselling Programme was to be held, on various dates, between 20.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 for the candidates of General category. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant, who was placed at serial No.1132, in All India merit list, under General category, bearing Roll No.81117276 (NEET (UG)-2013), applied online for appearing, in UGMAC-2013, for counselling.

7. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that she was not called for counselling, because some of the seats, meant for candidates of general category, were wrongly filled up from candidates belonging to reserved category. She submits that quite a few candidates from the reserved category, such as, EBC and BC, who had qualified with higher marks in the general merit list and had appeared in the counselling, opted for admission, against the reserved quota, and did not opt for the general quota inasmuch as these reserved category candidates could get seats in Institutions, which were preferred for reasons of location, standard of teaching and other relevant factors.

8. According to the appellant, when the candidates, belonging to the reserved category, had, rather, opted not to take admission, on their own merit, against the quota meant for candidates of the general category and had opted to take admission against the quota meant for candidates of the reserved category, the seats, in the general category, ought to have, in such circumstances, been left vacant and not allowed to have been filled up by the candidates of the reserved category, who were placed, in the general merit list, below the candidates of the general category so that the same could have been filled up by candidates belonging to the general category, who were higher in merit than the candidates of the reserved category.

9. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents, in complete contravention of the law relevant thereto, has filled up such vacant seats of the general category by the candidates of the reserved category