IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
A.A. Sayed, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Mr. Divyaish Singh Chouhan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 2415 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Redraw Admission - Upgradation of Course Seat - Seeks a direction to respondents to redraw merit for admission to MBBS course in mop-up round of counselling against seats of H.P. State Quota - Prayer is for upgradation of his MBBS course seat from Management Quota to H.P. State Quota (Scheduled Cast) category in respondent No.5 – If a candidate is satisfied with seat allotted to him, he need not then participate in subsequent round of counselling - Para 4.
Finding of the Court:
Vacancy position cannot re-adjusted by respondents on their own in every round of counselling - Clause 9(i) is to be followed only during allocation of vacant seats - Once seat occupied by (respondent No.7) was not available in mop-up round, once seat occupied by petitioner was not available in mop-up round, when Ms. Pragati Panwar & petitioner did not participate in mop-up round of counselling, there was no question of applying Clause 9(i) of Part VIII of prospectus for forcibly shifting Ms. Pragati Panwar from H.P. Quota (SC) seat to H.P. Quota (General) seat - Hence, seat of HP Quota (SC) category was not available in mop-up round of counselling - Petitioner could not be allotted seat occupied by Ms. Pragati Panwar - Process of admissions also stood concluded since long – Court do not find any merit in claim of petitioner for upgradation of his MBBS course seat in respondent No.5-private medical college from Management Quota to H.P. Quota (SC) category.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to redraw the merit for admission to the MBBS course in the mop-up round of counselling held on 25.03.2022 against the seats of H.P. State Quota. In essence, the prayer of the petitioner is for upgradation of his MBBS course seat from Management Quota to H.P. State Quota (Scheduled Cast) category in respondent No.5-Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital, Kumarhatti, District Solan.
2. Following facts are not in dispute :-
2(i) Petitioner appeared in NEET-undergraduate-2021 examination held for the academic session 2021-2022 and secured 407 marks therein. Respondent No.3 issued common/centralized counselling prospectus in December 2021 inviting applications for undergraduate Medical/Dental Courses for admissions based on merit of NEET-UG-2021. The petitioner participated in the counselling. In the State merit-list issued by respondent No.3, he secured 1568th rank.
2(ii) Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the first round of counselling, result of which was declared on 2.2.2022. Provisional seat allotment during second round of counselling was notified on 4.3.2022. Name of the petitioner with 1568th rank was reflected at Serial No.243. He was provisionally allotted Scheduled Cast category seat in H.P. Quota in respondent No.5-college. Ms. Pragati Panwar (respondent No.7) with 929th rank figured at Serial No.194 in this list. She was provisionally allotted General category seat in H.P. Quota in respondent No.5-college. Petitioner and Ms. Pragati Panwar, both belonged to Scheduled Caste (SC) category.
2(iii) Final seat allotment of second round of counselling was notified on 8.3.2022. In this list, one Mr. Raghav Singh with 815th rank figured at Serial No.179. He was allotted General category seat in H.P. Quota in respondent No.5-college. Resultantly, Ms. Pragati Panwar with 929th rank got shifted to serial No.198 in H.P. Quota Scheduled Caste category seat in respondent No.5-college. Consequently, the petitioner was allotted Management Quota seat (General) in respondent No-5-college. The allotment letter for MBBS/BDS Course Session 2021-22 was issued to the petitioner on 08.03.2022. The petitioner took admission in Management Quota (General) seat in respondent No.5-college and deposited the requisite fee.
2(iv) On 23.3.2022 respondent No.3 displayed vacancy position for mop-up round of counselling in respondent No.5-college. There were total 244 vacant seats out of which 4 were in H.P. Quota. In these 4 seats falling to H.P Quota, three were meant for General and one for the Scheduled Tribe categories. Mop-up round of counselling was held 25.3.2022. Three students namely Ms. Arundhati Sharma (rank 1025), Ms. Shalini Mankotia (rank 1179) and Mr. Mrigank Sood (rank 1199) belonging to General Category and admitted in management quota in second round of counselling, participated and were considered in the mop-up round of counselling against the available seats in H.P. Quota (General) category. Their status was up-graded from Management quota (allotted to them in second round of counselling) to H.P. Quota (General) against the available seats in the mop-up round.
2(v) The grievance of the petitioner is that before upgradation of MBBS seats of the aforesaid three candidates i.e. Ms. Arundhati Sharma, Ms. Shalini Mankotia and Mr. Mrigank Sood (respondent No.6) from Management Quota to H.P. Quota (General), the respondents were required to consider up-gradation of seat held by Ms. Pragati Panwar from H.P. Quota (SC) category to H.P. Quota (General) category against one out of the available three seats. That Ms. Pragati Panwar in view of her over all merit above the aforesaid three candidates was required to be shifted from H.P. Quota (SC) category to H.P. Quota (General) category in the mop-up round. Consequently, the petitioner was also required to be shifted and upgraded from Management Quota to H.P. Quota (SC) category i.e. the seat which would have
Vacancy is created either because of non-allocation of seat or candidate not taking admission on allocated seat.
The central legal point established is that the terms of the Prospectus, including the surrender of occupied PG seats for Mop Up round participation, must be honored for State Quota admissions.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rules and timelines set in the counselling process, the need to avoid disrupting settled admission processes, and the lack of a vested right ....
The allocation of reserved seats must follow institutional policies ensuring compliance with relevant laws, without arbitrary conversion of categories.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of merit and fair procedure in completing admissions to medical courses, and the entitlement of a wrongfully denied student to compe....
No legal right vested in the petitioner for allocation of vacant seat, as admission processes are bound by established counseling protocols, reflecting the principle of no fault leading to no prejudi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments to determine the correct categorization of candidates in UG Counselling for MBBS / BDS seats....
Candidates selected under the SC category, if eligible for the UR category, should be considered only under the UR category.
Technical glitches in online portals cannot justify leaving seats vacant, and courts can direct special measures to fill such vacancies.
The court upheld the admission process rules, stating that a student who submits a status retention form cannot later challenge subsequent admissions, ensuring fairness in the allocation of seats.
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.