Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27958
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ADITHYA NAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1953 of 2022 | Writ Appeal No. 1956 of 2022 | Writ Appeal No. 1957 of 2022 | Writ Appeal No. 1978 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.P.PRADEEP, SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN, HAREESH M.R., T.T.BIJU, T.THASMI, M.J.ANOOPA, SANU S MALAKEEL, P.K.IBRAHIM, BENOY THOMAS, V.A.HARITHA
For the Respondents: Sri. TEK CHAND, Sri. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K, Sri. TITUS MANI VETTOM, Sri. JAI SHANKAR V. NAIR
Regulatory compliance in admission processes prevails over flexibility in procedures, ensuring merit-based opportunities are protected.
Headnote:(A) Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 33 - Admission process - The writ petitioner sought to quash guidelines permitting already admitted students to participate in mop-up counselling for NEET, stating it violated regulations set by the Medical Council of India. The Court upheld the learned Single Judge's order enforcing Supreme Court directions that restrict participation to ensure compliance with established rules. The guidelines enabling pre-admitted students' participation were deemed void. (Paras 2, 18, 20)
(B) Admissions - Scope of notification - Appellants contended that guidelines improperly restricted opportunities for merit-based admissions to better colleges, asserting that the learned Single Judge's interpretation of regulations diminished chances for higher-ranked students. The Court ruled that adherence to the regulations was paramount for maintaining the integrity of the admission process and that the merit system should be respected. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The parties challenged the writ judgment affirming entries into mop-up counselling under rules conflicting with Medical Council regulations barring pre-admitted candidates.
Findings of Court:
The guidelines allowing already admitted candidates to participate in mop-up counselling were found invalid as they contradicted established regulations.
Issues: Whether the guidelines for mop-up counselling violated Medical Council regulations, impacting candidates' participation eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the established Medical Council regulations was non-negotiable, favoring upholding merit-based admissions over procedural deviations.
Result: Writ appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. third parties challenged state's mop-up counselling guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's exclusion from further rounds raised merit concerns. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments focused on fair opportunities under merit-based admissions. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. court references to compliance with medical council's regulations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. writ appeals were ultimately dismissed. (Para 18) |
| 6. supreme court directions uphold regulatory merit protection. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.1953/2022, 1956/2022, 1957/2022, 1978/2022]
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
The appeals are preferred by third parties to the judgment dated 13.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 40010 of 2022, after securing leave from this Court.
2. The party respondent in the appeals has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the conditions contained in Exhibit P2 guidelines issued by the office of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, for mop-up counselling which permits participation of already admitted students in MBBS seats in the first and second allotment in the State quota; to declare that in the light of Exhibit P3 order of the Apex Court in C.O.(C) No. 289 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 223 of 2022 dated 22.07.2022, and Exhibit P4 notice issued by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India dated 12.07.2022 directing all Participating States/Counseling authorities and candidates, that in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 31.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 174 of 2022, Medical Counseling Committee of DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has developed a software for all the participating States/counseling authorities for NEET-UG/PG to upload the names and roll numbers of the students who have joined upto round 2 of All India Quota on the common portal; and that those joined candidates upto round 2 of All India Quota, shall not be eligible to participate in the further rounds for All India Quota or for State Quota from the academic year 2022-23 onwards, insofar as it permits the college to transfer all students who are already allotted and admitted in various medical colleges, the guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations as inoperative and non-enforceable; and for a writ of mandamus commanding and compelling the Commissioner for Entrance Commissions, Thiruvananthapuram, to conduct mop-up counseling only in terms of Exhibits P3 and P4 specified above.
3. The basic contention advanced by the first respondent/writ petition is that she is included in the State Medical rank with rank No.1677 with the reservation benefit of Ezhava. She has not opted for newly started Government colleges and self financing colleges. According to the petitioner, the reason for non-option was that if a candidate has exercised his/her option and allotted a seat or if he/she has not joined on the allotted seat, he/she will lose their chance to participate in the mop-up counselling. It is the case of the petitioner that, that was the condition followed hitherto; but contrary to that, Exhibit P2 was issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram by permitting the already allotted candidates in the first and second allotment to participate in the mop-up counselling for the academic year 2022- 2023. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that the guidelines issued by the State Government are contrary to the directions of the Apex Court in Exhibit P3 order and the directions issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, Government of India in Exhibit P4 dated 13.07.2022.
4. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the directions issued in Exhibit P3 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and clause 11.6.9 of the prospectus issued by the State Government for admission to professional degree courses published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, has arrived at
