Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Indrajit Mahanty, Prakash Gupta, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Kumar Saini - Respondent
Special Appeal Writ No. 396 of 2020, 397 of 2020, 398 of 2020, 399 of 2020, 401 of 2020, 408 of 2020, 442 of 2020
Decided On : 17-07-2020
MEDICAL EDUCATION - PG ADMISSION - EWS QUOTA - ADDITIONAL SEATS - COUNSELLING - FIRST ROUND - INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL SEATS - EWS RESERVATION - APPLICATION - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 15(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ESTOPPEL - PREJUDICE - MCI REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF STATE AND MCI - DIRECTIONS BY SINGLE JUDGE - VALIDITY - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the first round of counselling conducted by the State for admission to PG Medical courses for the academic year 2020-21, alleging that the State failed to include 89 additional seats allotted by the MCI for implementation of EWS quota, thereby affecting the rights of unreserved category candidates. The single judge allowed the petitions and directed the State to conduct a fresh round of counselling by including the additional seats and applying EWS reservation as per the MCI letter dated 27.02.2020. The State challenged the judgment, contending that the directions issued by the single judge were contrary to Article 15(6) of the Constitution and that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the counselling process as they had participated in it without any objection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the directions issued by the single judge were not sustainable in law. It interpreted Article 15(6) of the Constitution and held that EWS reservation was to be provided in addition to the existing reservations, subject to a cap of 10%. It further held that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the counselling process as they had participated in it without any objection. The Court also held that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioners by the impugned action of the State and that the MCI did not have the power to curtail the State's discretion in applying the EWS reservation. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and upheld the first round of counselling conducted by the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the directions issued by the single judge were contrary to Article 15(6) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners were estopped from challenging the counselling process? 3. Whether there was any prejudice caused to the petitioners by the impugned action of the State? 4. Whether the MCI had the power to curtail the State's discretion in applying the EWS reservation? 5. Whether the single judge was justified in issuing general directions by treating the petitions as filed in representative capacity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 15(6) of the Constitution provides for EWS reservation in addition to the existing reservations, subject to a cap of 10%. 2. Candidates who participate in a counselling process without any objection are estopped from challenging the same at a later stage. 3. The MCI does not have the power to curtail the State's discretion in applying the EWS reservation. 4. A single judge cannot issue general directions by treating petitions as filed in representative capacity without following the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the State and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2020 passed by the learned single judge. The Court held that the first round of counselling was proper and there was no illegality or infirmity in the same. The State was directed to proceed with the second round of counselling.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Gupta, J. - Under challenge is the judgment dated 15.6.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned single judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners with the following directions:
"(a) The State Government shall conduct a fresh round of counselling for admission to PG seats by including the additional seats allotted for implementation of EWS quota as per the MCI letter dated 27/02/2020.
(b) As it is noticed that during pendency of the writ petitions, the first round of All India Counselling and second round of All India Counselling has already commenced, therefore, in the counselling, which is to be done now by the State, all the seats, which have come back to the State Government after the All India Counselling, shall also be included keeping in view the peculiar circumstances which have arisen and with the view that there is no delay in giving admissions.
(c) The State Government shall be free to fill EWS 10% quota by applying plain roster of 10%. The roster of direct recruitment shall not be applicable for the said purpose. The EWS reservation shall apply as per roster to the only seats which are made available by MCI for implementation of EWS quota vide letter dated 27/02/2020.
(d) The admissions given in the first round of counselling would be treated as cancelled. However, if in the second round of counselling, the students are allotted the same College, their admission shall be accordingly made. In other cases, where a student has not been able to get a particular seat, his fees already deposited, shall be returned. The exercise shall be immediately conducted on completion of the All India Counselling.
(e) It is directed that henceforth, the admission process for PG Courses, which is to be conducted, shall be transparent and information shall be provided to all students beforehand about roster which is being applied and the Colleges where the vacant seats are there etc. in order to avoid further litigation in future.
(f) The observations made by this Court with regard to the EWS reservation in each category as per the provisions of the Constitution shall be considered for future admissions."
FACTS IN A NUTSHELL
1. The brief facts necessary for a fair adjudication of these Appeals are that: Admission to Post Graduate Courses in Medical Education are done on the basis of merit secured by the participating candidates in a uniform entrance test known as the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter "NEET"). The said examination has to be conducted by the National Board of Examination under the supervision and guidance of the Medical Council of India (Now the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI). For this purpose, an amendment was made to Section 10-D of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The admission process for various post-graduate courses in medical education are governed by Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter "the Regulation of 2000"). Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2000 deals with reservations of seats in medical colleges/institutions for the respective categories and states that reservations would be made as per the extant laws in the concerned State/Union Territory. The procedure for counselling is provided by Regulation 9A of the Regulations of 2000 and the designated authorities responsible for counselling of 50% All India Quota seats as also the 50% state seats as are specified therein.
2. For the academic session 2020-2021, the National Board of Examination invited application for NEET PG 2020 on 01.11.2019 and the Petitioners filled the forms and participated in NEET PG 2020 under the General/UR category and participated in the entrance examination held on 06.01.2020. The results and cut-off were declared on 21.01.2020.
3. Before the commencement of the counselling process, the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI, recommended 92 additional seats for the State of Rajasthan in six government medi
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
