Back
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Rajendra Kumar Sao, S/o. Bhuwan Lal Sao – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare – Respondent
ORDER :
(Arup Kumar Goswami, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioners belong to 'OBC' category and they had appeared in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Text (UG)-2022 (NEET). The petitioners No. 1 and 2 had obtained 98 and 93 marks, respectively, in the said examination.
3. The admitted position is that the petitioners did not register for counselling. The mop-up round, after the first and second round of BDS course counselling, was concluded on 15.12.2022.
4. On 21.12.2022, the respondent No. 3 issued a notification for fresh registration of students for filling up vacant seats in the stray round. Registration was to be done in between 22.12.2022 and 25.12.2022.
5. At that stage, the petitioners wanted to register to participate in the stray round. However, being not successful in registering, this pre
Conversion of vacant seats to unreserved category permissible due to lack of OBC, SC, and ST candidates.
Candidates not domiciled in Uttar Pradesh must meet higher cut-off marks for Unreserved/Open category to qualify for counselling, regardless of their reservation status in their home state.
The court upheld the legality of the admission policy requiring non-domiciled candidates to meet higher cut-off marks for counselling, affirming that reservation claims were dissolved for such candid....
The court established that candidates should be allowed to correct genuine mistakes in their application forms, particularly when such corrections do not disrupt the overall admission process and uph....
Court affirmed the importance of adhering to admission timelines and rejected jurisdiction under Article 226 for petitioner's procedural failures.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
