Candidates cannot give new choices beyond what was offered in the first round of admission process, as per Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules, 2017.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sujay J.Adeshra for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.1-State and learned Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. K.M.Antani for respondent No.2.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Antani and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No.2-Admission Committee for Professional Undergraduate Medical Courses [For short ‘ACPUGMEC’] for not granting the allotment of seats and admission to the Medical College as per the choice ranking of the petitioner for the second round of counseling for the academic year 2022-23 onwards.

4. The petitioner appeared for National Examination of Eligible Test [NEET] for admission in Medical Colleges and secured General Merit No. 5048 and Category Merit No.222. The petitioner participated in the counseling and offered her choice of institution as required under Rule 1(iv) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 [For short ‘the Rules, 2017’].

5. The first round of counseling was notified to be held on 27.01.2022. The petitioner in the first round of counseling indicated 16 institutions/colleges in the order of reference for getting the admission though there were more colleges available for admission.

6. The petitioner is a girl student and was entitled for admission to the Medical College in Gujarat.

7. The petitioner filed online application for admission wherein the petitioner had given only 16 choices of reference of medical colleges. In the first round of admission process, no seat was available to the petitioner in any of the 16 colleges of her choice and there was no possibility for the petitioner to get the seat.

8. The petitioner therefore, applied for second round of admission process and submitted 35 choices of colleges. In the second round also, the petitioner was not allotted a seat and according to the petitioner, student with lower merits were allotted seats. The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Sujay A. Adesara for the petitioner submitted that Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017 provides for admission process in undergraduate medical courses. It was submitted that combined reading of the clause (iv) and clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) of the Rule 2017 provides that the allotment of seat is based on merit, category of candidate and availability of seats and where considerable number of seats fall vacant and it appears to the Admission Committee to fulfill the vacant seats, it may conduct the admission process for re-adjustment [reshuffling]. It was submitted that as readjustment [reshuffling] is only qua vacant seats, the admission process cannot become endless if a meritorious candidate files its new choice according to Rule 11(1)(viii) and is considered for admission qua vacant seats. As soon as there are no vacant seats, there would be no reason to conduct subsequent rounds of admission process.

10. It was submitted that the candidate may either give options for up-gradation of choices or submit new choices and definition of “new” as defined in Merriam Webster Dictionary is “being other than the former or old”.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra pointed out that when the petitioner filled preferences for second round of allotment process, she was allowed to submit new choices over and above her previous choices by the computer system. It was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to get the admission on the seats available in the previous allotment process meaning thereby the seats offered and available to him/her in previous allotment and if a candidate who is offered and allotted a seat in the first round does not available of that seat, then such candidate loses his right over the said