Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 501
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Neelam Saini - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2020, 7849 of 2020
Decided On : 29-07-2020
Himanshu Jain, Advocate, Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Advocate, Angad Mirdha, Advocate, Harshal Tholia, Advocate, Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, R.P. Meena, Advocate, Sandeep Tandon, Advocate
Merit should be the sole criterion for selection in medical courses, and meritorious candidates who pursue their legal rights expeditiously should not be denied admission.
Headnote:
MEDICAL ADMISSION - PG COURSE - MOP-UP ROUND - ELIGIBILITY - PARTICIPATION OF CANDIDATES WHO JOINED COURSES IN ALLOTTED COLLEGES - INTERPRETATION OF MCI GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS - MERIT-BASED ADMISSION - RELIEF TO MERITORIOUS CANDIDATES - SETTING ASIDE OF INELIGIBILITY CONDITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, medical officers appointed under Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963, participated in NEET-2020 for admission to PG courses. They joined allotted colleges after the first round of counseling. The issue arose when the Notification dated 24th July, 2020, for the Mop-up round declared candidates who joined allotted colleges ineligible for participation. Petitioners challenged this condition, seeking permission to participate in the Mop-up round and admission to desired courses based on merit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court observed that due to the online counseling process, candidates who participated in the second round of State counseling did not resign till they participated in the second round and were given a chance to resign subsequently. This resulted in the unavailability of seats for candidates like the petitioners who participated in the second round. The Court held that the criteria for selection should be merit alone and merit, fairness, and transparency should be the ethos of the admission process. The Court found that the petitioners had participated in the counseling process, but not following the instructions contained in the booklet or extending the date of resignation of the candidates could not affect their rights.
Issues: 1. Whether candidates who joined allotted colleges in the second round of counseling are eligible to participate in the Mop-up round? 2. Whether the condition in the Notification dated 24th July, 2020, declaring petitioners ineligible for participation in Mop-up/residuary allotments is arbitrary and violative of merit-based admission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the MCI Guidelines and Instructions, which provided that candidates who joined seats in the second round of counseling and did not report/join the allotted seat would have their registration fee forfeited and would not be eligible for further counseling. However, the Court noted that due to the online counseling conducted by the respondents, the difficulty arose for maintaining the seat matrix or availability of the seat or resignation to be given by the candidate on the spot. 2. The Court relied on precedents emphasizing the importance of merit and fairness in the admission process. It held that meritorious candidates who pursued their legal rights expeditiously should not be denied relief of admission. The Court found that the petitioners had acted on a wrong and illegal criterion and were not estopped from challenging the same.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the condition in the Notification dated 24th July, 2020, declaring the petitioners ineligible for participation in Mop-up/residuary allotments in P.G. seats, as arbitrary and setting it aside. The respondents were directed to include the petitioners in the Mop-up round, and if they had the requisite merit, their cases were to be considered as per their merit and preferences.
JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present order will dispose of these two writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the Notification dated 24th July, 2020 to the extent of not permitting the petitioners to participate in Mop-up round on the ground that they joined the course at the allotted colleges.
2. The petitions have also been filed for praying direction to permit the petitioners to participate in Mop-up round scheduled to be held in furtherance of the Notification dated 24th July, 2020.
3. The petitioners also seek direction to fill the seats reverted from first round of counselling on the basis of merit of the candidates whether they have joined the course or not, strictly on the basis of merit-cum-preference and accordingly, the petitioners may be be given admission in the desired courses, as per their merit.
4. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioners are Medical Officers, appointed under Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules of 1963') and they all are 'in-service' candidates for the purpose of admission in PG course/examination conducted by the National Board of Examination known as National Eligibility Entrance Test-2020 (for short "NEET-2020").
5. The petitioners have submitted that they had fulfilled the eligibility conditions for applying for admission in PG course-2020 and they submitted their online application form after taking 'No Objection' from the Directorate, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. The result of the examination was declared on 30th January, 2020.
6. The petitioners have submitted that while declaring the result, the cut-off scores for various categories was declared and under general/open category, the minimum eligibility criteria was 50th percentile and cut-off score was 366 marks.
7. The petitioners have submitted that the Directorate, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur had issued an order dated 21st January, 2020, whereby the Chief Medical and Health Officers and other authorities, were directed to forward the application form of all the eligible 'in-service' candidates under 'in-service' category.
8. The petitioners have submitted that due to ongoing "Coronavirus" outbreak, the counselling programme was announced for the State of Rajasthan on 16th April, 2020 and the online choice was to be filled from 19th April, 2020 to 21st April, 2020.
9. The petitioners have submitted that processing of seat allotment (Online) by the Admission Board-2020, was to be from 25th April, 2020 to 26th April, 2020 and after declaration of result and generation of online allotment letters, reporting and document verification was to be done at the college from 27th April, 2020 to 3rd May, 2020.
10. The petitioners have submitted in the petitions that on 18th July, 2020, the respondents issued notification for second round of the counselling, which was to be commenced from 18th July, 2020 and in terms of Clause-11 of the Notification dated 18th July, 2020, physical reporting and document verification at the allotted colleges was to be done by 27th July, 2020.
11. The petitioners have submitted that in the Notification dated 18th July, 2020, the candidates had to report physically (online option was not available) and earlier in first round of counselling, it was either physical reporting or online reporting and as such it resulted into non-joining of the candidates to their allotted colleges, yet they were permitted to participate in second round of counselling and the seats occupied by these candidates were not shown in seat matrix of second round counselling and as such the petitioners, who could have participated against these seats, were deprived to participate.
12. The petitioners have further pleaded in the petitions that another important information/letter dated 21st July, 2020 was issued wherein the last date of resignation without forfeiture by joined candidates of round one (only for those who do not upgrade in round two) was extended upto 26th July
