IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Gunjan Ahuja & others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others – Respondents
CWP No. 2160 of 2020
Decided On : 10-07-2020
NEET PG Prospectus - Admission Counselling - Regulation 9 of Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - Medical Council of India Regulations - Violation of Regulations - Merit-based Admission
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash stipulations in the NEET PG Prospectus, 2020, which made appearance in the 1st round of Centralized Counselling mandatory for consideration in subsequent rounds. They argued that these provisions were illegal and violated the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions in the NEET PG Prospectus were in violation of the regulations of the MCI, which mandate merit-based admissions. The court held that denying meritorious candidates a chance for admission solely based on their non-participation in the 1st round of counselling was unreasonable and illegal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the stipulations in the NEET PG Prospectus, 2020, and their compliance with the regulations of the MCI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of the regulations framed by the MCI and the importance of merit-based admissions in medical courses. It highlighted that the provisions in the prospectus violated the principle of merit and fairness in the admission process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the stipulations in the NEET PG Prospectus, and directed the respondents to allot seats in subsequent rounds of counselling strictly based on the academic merit of the candidates as per the All India NEET Examination.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The petitioners could not participate in the 1st round of counselling for admission to MD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Courses 2020-2021. Thereafter, they applied for consideration of their candidature in the 2nd round of counselling, which according to them, is being considered wrongly and illegally, after giving undue advantage to non-meritorious candidates, who have applied for 1st round of counselling, over and above them, solely on the basis that they did not apply in the 1st round of counselling and aggrieved thereby, they have filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:
(ii). To quash and set aside the stipulation stating “During the 2nd round of Centralized Counselling and subsequent rounds/MOP up round of counseling, seats shall be allotted from 1st State merit. After exhaustion of 1st merit completely, 2nd merit will be considered for allotment of seats (if seats available)” contained in condition No. 7.5 of the NEET PG Prospectus, 2020 annexed vide Annexure P-4.
(iii). That the respondents may be directed to allot seats in second round of counselling and subsequent rounds of counselling strictly as per merit of the eligible candidates i.e. as per academic merit of the candidates determined on the basis of All India NEET Examination.”
2. The petitioners appeared in the Combined All India Entrance Test NEET, 2020, wherein they applied in General Category and after having qualified found the place in the merit list.
3. The Scheme of Online 50% All India Quota PG counselling was issued, which provided for the mechanism which needs to be adopted during the counselling process.
4. This Scheme has been formulated in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In terms thereof, 50% of the seats are required to be filled-up by All India counselling and the remaining 50% seats are to be filled up by the State Government by conducting the counselling for the State seats as well as seats of Private Medical Colleges.
5. The Court herein is concerned with the seats for private medical colleges. The procedure for filling whereof is laid down in clauses 7.1 and 7.5 of the prospectus issued by the respondents, which read as under:
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.
Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & ors. vs. State of Gujarat & ors.
Dr. Narayan Sharma & anr. vs. Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lehkar & ors.
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & anr. vs. State of M.P. & ors.
Harish Verma & ors. vs. Ajay Srivastava & ors.
Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka & ors.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Priya Gupta vs. State of Chattisgarh and ors.
State of M.P. & ors. vs. Gopal D. Tirthani & ors.
State of Punjab vs. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital & ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.