Mr.Nagaraja

Ballal

A.,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner.

Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent

No.3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the

following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ of CERTIORARI to quash the List

in so far as it allots the seats to candidates who

3

have secured higher ranks then that of the

Petitioner (Annexure D);

(b) Issue a writ of MANDAMUS to allot the seat

to the Petitioner as per her Option List in Round

-1 itself (Annexure C).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had appeared in NEET Post Graduate examination

2021 and has secured an All India ranking of 64096 by

securing 346 marks under the general merit quota. It is

further submitted that the petitioner had given option for 204

seats in various medical colleges. However, she has not

been allotted any seat in first and second round of

counselling. It is also pointed out that several candidates

who are less meritorious than her, have been admitted in the

first and second of counselling to post graduate medical

course. It is therefore submitted that the respondent No.3

be directed to allot a seat to the petitioner as per her choice

in post graduate medical course.

3. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. In the writ petition, there

4

is absolutely no pleading as to who are the less meritorious

candidates who have been selected in place of the petitioner.

Besides that, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari

to quash the list insofar as it allots seats to the candidates

which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-D.

However, the aforesaid candidates have not been impleaded

as respondents. In the absence of their impleadment, it is

not possible for us to grant the relief of quashment of the

list.

4. The procedure of admission to post graduate medical

course is governed under the Rules framed by the Karnataka

Examination Authority. The criteria for admission is

prescribed under Rule 11 and 12 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule

12 explains the counselling procedure and Rule 12.3 defines

the seat allotment logic. In the absence of any particulars as

to how the less meritorious candidates than the petitioner

have been admitted to post graduate medical course, it is not

possible for us to arrive at a conclusion that less meritorious

candidates than the petitioner have been admitted. The

admission has been made on the basis of criteria prescribed

5

under Rule 11 and 12 of the aforesaid Rules. If there was an

infraction of the criteria prescribed under the Rules, the

petitioner ought to have clearly pleaded the same. The

petitioner has made a vague allegation. The criteria

prescribed for admission to the course has not been

challenged. In view of the obtaining factual matrix, no writ

of mandamus can be issued to the Karnataka Examination

Authority to admit the petitioner to post graduate medical

course for the aforesaid option.

In view of the aforesaid observation, we do not find

any merit in the petition.

In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV