SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 71

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Dr. Vishal Dahiya and Ors - Petitioners
Versus
The Medical Counselling Committee MCC & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 992 of 2022 & CM APPL. 3420 of 2022 (stay)
Decided On : 15-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Gaurav Ray, Mr. Kaushik Mishra and Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Syed Hussain Taqvi, Ms. Srirupa Nag, Advs., Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv., Dr. Charu Mathur, Adv. for interveners

Point of Law : Rules of the game cannot be changed after the select list is published is, not applicable to the facts of the present case; in that case, a policy change to exclude central categories was brought in at the last minute.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Medical Counselling Committee - OBC reservation - Online allotment of seats - Petitioners who are candidates falling in Delhi OBC list have approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, assailing notice dated issued by Medical Counselling Committee, whereby OBC reservation - Criteria has been modified with regard to Institutional Preference Seats in Central Institutes - MCC, which is respondent no.1, is an organization under Directorate General of Health Services - MCC is responsible for online allotment of seats for undergraduate, postgraduate and super-specialty medical and dental courses in government- run/aided colleges and deemed-to-be-university colleges on basis of candidates' score in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Factors which are considered during allotment are merit, reservation eligibility and preference list submitted by candidates - Whether merely because VMMC & SJH, ABVIMS & RML, ESIC, Basaidarapur do not qualify as CEI under CEI Act, which makes it mandatory for Central Government to provide 27% reservation for OBC candidates, can it denude the Central Government of its power to decide OBC list to use, Central or the State list?.

Finding of the Court:

Decision of Court in Ankita Choudhary (supra) upon which petitioners have placed heavy reliance to contend that ‘rules of the game’ cannot be changed after select list is published is, not applicable to facts of present case; in that case, a policy change to exclude central categories was brought in at last minute - In present case, there is no last minute change but only a last minute clarification of an inadvertent error - Petitioners have also not denied that this policy to use only Central OBC list for admission to Under Graduate courses in these two institutes has been in vogue since last academic year - Decision is therefore clearly distinguishable and does not forward case of petitioners - Court do not deem it necessary to deal with submissions of respondent that granting relief sought in present petition would result indirectly in reservations based on the domicile of candidates, which, it has been contended is not permissible in view of various decisions of Apex Court.

Result : Writ petition is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The Petitioners who are candidates falling in the Delhi OBC list have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the notice dated 10.01.2022, issued by the Medical Counselling Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCC'), whereby OBC reservation criteria has been modified with regard to Institutional Preference Seats in the Central Institutes.

2. The MCC, which is respondent no.1, is an organization under the Directorate General of Health Services (hereinafter referred to as 'DGHS')'. The MCC is responsible for online allotment of seats for undergraduate, postgraduate and super-specialty medical and dental courses in government-run/aided colleges and deemed-to-be-university colleges on the basis of the candidates' score in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as 'NEET'). The factors which are considered during allotment are merit, reservation eligibility and the preference list submitted by the candidates. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as 'GGSIPU'), formerly known as 'Indraprastha University', which is a state teaching-cum-affiliating university, located in the NCT has been arrayed as respondent no. 2 in the present petition.

3. On 23.02.2021, the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'NBEMS'), which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoHFW) established with the objective of standardizing postgraduate medical education and examination in India, published the NEET-PG, 2021 bulletin outlining the schedule and criteria for the common entrance exam, based on which the counselling for admission to medical colleges takes place all over the country. Thereafter, the respondent no.2/University issued its General Admission Brochure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the brochure’) on 10.06.2021, wherein it laid down the criteria for reservation in the OBC category, a detailed reference whereto will be made at a later stage in the judgment.

4. Thereafter, on 29.07.2021, a circular was issued by the DGHS, wherein it was provided that there would be 27% of reservation for OBCs (noncreamy layer) and 10% reservation for EWS in the 15% undergraduate and 50% postgraduate seats in the All India Quota (hereinafter referred to as 'AIQ') for the academic year 2021-22. This notification was challenged before the Apex Court by way of a writ petition titled "Neil Aurelio Nunes and others v. Union of India and others" W.P.(C) 961/2021, wherein the Apex Court passed its preliminary interim order on 07.01.2022, permitting the counselling for the NEET-PG 2021 to commence forthwith.

5. The NEET-PG Exam, which was initially to be held in April, 2021 was, however, postponed due to an upsurge in Covid-19 cases, and was subsequently, held on 11.09.2021, the results whereof were declared on 28.09.2021. Soon after the declaration of the results, the MCC on 03.10.2021, published its Information Bulletin for the counselling to be held for admissions to the PG medical courses.

6. It is the petitioners’ case that both, under the brochure issued by respondent no.2 on 10.06.2021, and the Information Bulletin issued by the MCC on 03.10.2021, they, as OBC candidates in terms of the list maintained by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, were eligible for admission against the OBC seats in the 50% institutional preference seats.

7. Pursuant to the interim order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes (supra), the respondent no. 1 on 10.01.2022 notified the time schedule for counselling. As per this notice, the registration and payment by candidates for counselling was to commence on 12.01.2022. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract of the counselling schedule reads as under:-

SCHEDULE FOR ONLINE PG COUNSELING (

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top