09.01.2026

sdas

WPA 323 of 2026

Rashedul Islam Molla

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Rittick Chowdhury Mr. Deb Kumar Deashi

…. for the petitioner

Mr. Swapan Dutta, learned G.P.

Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta

Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty

…. for the State

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay

Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Ms. Debolena Ghosh

….. for the WBMCC

Mr. D. N. Maiti

….. for the WBUHS

Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy

….. for the NMC

Mr. Asumdipta Santra

….. for the JIMS

1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept

on record.

2. The petitioner is a meritorious student who had

appeared in the NEET UG, 2025 examination and successfully qualified with All India Rank of

61299 and a General Category Rank of 22223.

3. The petitioner had not been allotted a seat in

round 1 of counseling. However, the petitioner was successful in the second round of counselling. The petitioner, thus, was

provisionally allotted a seat in the respondent no. 8 in round 2. However, with the hope of admission to a better college, the petitioner did not take admission in this college and opted to participate in the counselling of round 3. However, the petitioner was unable to deposit the prescribed counselling fee before the server dead line due to unintentional omission on his part. The petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court and obtained an order on November 7, 2025, by which it was directed that the petitioner would be allowed to participate in the stray round of counselling after the candidates in the entire list for the same round. In fact, it was also directed that after completion of admission in the entire selection process, if any vacancy be available, which is not filled up within the scheduled date, the appropriate authority shall consider the case of the petitioner’s admission in any medical college within the scope of the entrance examination. The petitioner had participated in the stray round and had not been allotted a seat in any college, whereupon a second writ petition had been filed which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on December 19, 2025. By the said order, the petitioner was permitted to participate in further rounds (stray and special stray).

4. The petitioner participated, though ultimately he was not allotted a seat for the reasons best known to the authorities, particularly, since the same is a software controlled programme over which the authorities may not have control to exercise of their own.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a meritorious and eligible student.

6. Ms. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits, on instructions, a copy of which is kept on record, that after the stray round of counseling (fifth round), there are approximately 20 seats, which are still vacant in various medical colleges all over West Bengal, at present.

7. However, of these, only eight colleges offering the MBBS course, have such vacancies.

8. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7, opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

9. Mr. Dutta, learned Government Pleader, appears for the State.

10.Mr. Maity, learned Advocate appears for the respondent no. 5.

11. Mr. Santra, learned Advocate appears for the respondent no. 8.

12. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and gone through the documents on record. The hurdles, in so far as the petitioner’s prayer is considered, is primarily that the cut-off date has lapsed on December 31, 2025. However, in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (S. Krishna Sradha vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) reported in 2020 (17) SCC 465, it cannot be denied that a meritorious student, such as the petitioner, should not be denied the admission, especially since the petitioner had been allotted a seat in a college in earlier rounds on the basis of his rank. The petitioner has also pursued his legal rights and remedies expeditiously without any delay before this Hon’ble Court. Thus, the petitioner’s entitlement, as a meritorious student to get admission, is not in