A candidate’s vested right to admission once granted cannot be arbitrarily revoked without due process; the State must establish a transparent selection method.

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The brief facts surrounding the case are that the petitioner had applied for Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) (PG) Course against a seat allotted for the State of Meghalaya at the Regional Dental College, Guwahati for the academic year 2024-2025 along with six other candidates. As per the said list, the petitioner having obtained the highest NEET score was nominated to the said vacancy and after complying with all the necessary formalities, was admitted to the said Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2024-25 on 22-07-2024 and the classes had then commenced, immediately thereafter.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the State respondents, vide an order dated 19-08-2024, unilaterally withdrew her nomination for the MDS PG Course against the seat allotted to the State of Meghalaya on the ground that there existed another candidate (respondent No. 5) with a higher NEET score as per the second list, which had been submitted to the State respondents on 29-07-2024, and that by another order the private respondent was nominated against the seat already occupied by the writ petitioner in the same College.

3. Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner having been allocated the seat validly on her application and being the most meritorious, as per the list released by the State respondents on 22-05-2024, had acquired a vested right to the seat and the unilateral cancellation, without affording any hearing to the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that once the seat had been allotted to the writ petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that other meritorious candidates are present, however, once the order had been issued, the State respondents were estopped from retracting the same. As such, he prays that the allotment of the MDS PG Course seat to the private respondent made at her expense, be set aside.

4. Mr. A.Kumar, learned AG assisted by Ms. A.Thungwa, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents Nos. 1-4, submits that the reason for the issuance of the order recalling the allotment of the seat to the petitioner, was due to the fact that after the earlier applications had been processed, fresh applications had been received from the private respondent and others, and as the private respondent was having a higher NEET score, the State respondents had resorted to the action which is now impugned in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the recalling of the writ petitioner’s candidature, was only not to deprive a more meritorious candidate who was available for consideration.

5. Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 5, has submitted that the request for admission for MDS PG Course was made much prior to the allocation of the seat on 02- 07-2024 and has referred to Annexure-R/1 of the State respondent’s affidavit to substantiate this fact. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-R/2, to show that copies of the petition/representation from the private respondent had been received by the concerned authority on 29-07- 2024. He therefore, submits that the private respondent being more meritorious and due to no fault of his, having been deprived of a seat, deserves some consideration.

6. This Court in the course of hearing, as it appeared that there was some serious anomaly in the matter of the allotment of the seat to the writ petitioner, had directed for the production of the original records dealing with the entire matter. A perusal thereof, however, has reflected that there