IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that miscommunication regarding admission status should not penalize the petitioner, allowing him to participate in the special stray vacancy round.

ORDER :

(Dinesh Mehta, J.)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents have wrongly not given admission to him in any of the medical colleges in 4th round of counseling and prayed that the respondents be directed to give admission to him atleast in the 4th round of counseling or special stray vacancy round.

2. The petitioner appeared in NEET UG Examination, 2024 and secured 665 marks and his All India Rank was 16179. The petitioner took part in the counseling held by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner has come with a specific case that in second and third round of counseling, he was allotted the Government Medical college (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GMC’) at Bundi and Karauli respectively but since he did not wish to join at those places, he did not deposit the fee and got admission, as he was desirious of getting some better/convenient college as he was informed that another round of counseling will be held by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. A notice dated 23.10.2024 came to be issued by the respondent No.1-Union of India, which reads thus:-“Candidates who did not join their seats allotted through MCC in Round-3 are ‘Not Eligible’ to participate in Stray Vacancy Round of UG Counselling 2024 of MCC. However, ‘Not Reported’ candidates of Round-3 of MCC counselling can participate in state UG counselling.”

5. During the course of previous hearing, this Court had directed the Central Government to clarify and explain the difference between the expression “Not eligible” and “Not reported” as mentioned in notice dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure-9).

6. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General in furtherance whereof, has produced a copy of the e-mail dated 21.11.2024 for perusal of the Court, which reads thus:-

“Respected Sir

It is mentioned that “Not Eligible” term refers to when a candidate cannot participate in the ongoing counselling conducted by MCC of DGHS due to any of the rules and regulations as and when displayed of MCC,

It is mentioned that “Not Reported” term refers to when a candidate has not joined the allotted college in counselling in any round of counselling.

The date and time of uploading by the state counselling is attached in the mail.”

7. The copy of the e-mail dated 21.11.2024 is taken on record.

8. A perusal of the clarification sent through e-mail dated 21.11.2024 shows that respondents have though differentiated between the terms “Not eligible” and “Not reported” but the expression “Not joined” and “Not reported” are taken to be synonymous, whereas in the notice dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure-9), these expressions have been used as if both are different.

9. Such being the position, if the petitioner bonafidely did not join or report at the allotted college (Karauli and Bundi), in the belief that he would be allowed to take part in the stray vacancy round, such relief cannot be said to be baseless.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that atleast 28 persons less meritorious than him have been given admission in different colleges in stray vacancy rounds, pursuant to the notification dated 23.10.2024, whereas petitioner was not given admission. He asserted that the petitioner had not been allotted college, considering that he had joined at GMC Bundi whereas he did not.

11. Asserting that the petitioner has neither reported nor deposited the fees and his original documents are still lying with him, learned counsel submitted that it was because of some inadvertence or communication gap or misinformation due to which it was taken that the petitioner had joined at GMC Bundi.

12. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to give him admission in GMC Bundi, where he was showed to have joined.

13. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Dy.SG admitted the fact that the reason for which the petitioner’s case was not considered in 4th round of counseling was that (on basis of facuta