The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rules and timelines set in the counselling process, the need to avoid disrupting settled admission processes, and the lack of a vested right for a specific candidate to claim a seat based on vigilance and merit alone.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjeev Narula, J.)

1. The Petitioner [Dr. Khundongbam Chetan], a registered medical practitioner has qualified NEET-PG 2021 examination with All India Quota rank of 28858. Aspiring to get admission in the six-year post-MBBS direct DrNB course in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Respondent No. 4- Institute [Shija Hospitals & Research Institute Pvt Ltd.], he opted for a seat at Respondent No.4-Institute for the said course in all rounds of counselling but, was the same not allotted to him. He contends that another candidate, with a higher rank, kept the seat blocked in the first as well as second round of counselling, but eventually never joined the said course, and consequently the seat fell vacant on 04th March, 2022. In the afore-noted background, the Petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the vacant seat should be allotted to him or put up for a fresh round of counselling, failing which it would go waste.

2. Mr. Abhijit Mani Tripathi, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that common counselling for admission to PG courses was to be conducted (including DNB/ DrNB course), offered by Respondent No. 4-Institute, approved by Respondent No. 2 [National Board of Examinations/ “NBE”] and conducted by Respondent No. 3 [Medical Counselling Committee/ “MCC”], for the first time, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court. In terms thereof, first round of counselling was held from 07th to 30th January, 2022 [“Round-1”] wherein the Petitioner applied for his first choice for the seat with Respondent No. 4-Institute in the DrNB course in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. However, another candidate [Dr. Roweena Eunice Niveditha], being higher in the merit list was allotted the seat. The second round of counselling was then conducted from 05th to 24th February, 2022 [“Round-2”] and the seat allotment qua the said course remained unchanged/ blocked and the Petitioner could not get the seat of his first choice. Later, as it transpires, Dr. Niveditha was allotted a seat in MS (Otorhinolaryngology) in CMC, Vellore on 24th February, 2022 and she submitted her resignation on 04th March, 2022.

3. Mr. Tripathi emphasises that since Dr. Niveditha did not join the course, Respondent No. 4-Institute sent an intimation to that effect to NBE and MCC. Subsequently, when Dr. Niveditha tendered her resignation, the institute immediately informed MCC i.e., the counselling authority, regarding the vacancy and requested them to include the said vacant seat in further rounds of counselling. Subsequent reminders were sent by the said institute on 31st March, 2022, 16th April, 2022 and 09th May, 2022. However, Respondents failed to include the seat in any further round of counselling. Since the seat had become vacant, the concerned Respondents authorities ought to have placed the same in the MOP UP round which would have enabled the Petitioner to get admission against the seat. Mr. Tripathi submits that the Petitioner has a keen interest in the branch of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and has been aspiring for admission in this discipline for the last several years. Now that Dr. Niveditha has submitted her resignation, the vacant seat should be allotted to the Petitioner or a fresh round of counselling should be conducted. If the seat remains vacant for the next year, it will result in depriving medical students from learning and training opportunities qua the said super specialist course. The Petitioner is the only candidate who is pursuing its remedies to get admission in the said course and is also high in the merit list. He further states that a precious medical seat should not be wasted, and this would indeed not be in the interest of medical infrastructure of the country. Alternatively, he argues that fresh counselling be ordered if for any reason, the Court finds that the seat cannot be allotted to the Petitioner. In such an event, he is confident that Petitioner alone will get the admission, considering his higher rank.

4. On the obj