Chattisgarh High Court
Radhika Mangtani vs Union Of India on 4 April, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1685 of 2022
Radhika Mangtani D/o Shri Raj Kumar Mangtani, Aged About 19
Years R/o. Kashyap Colony, Street No. 04, Near Old Bus Stand,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Shastri Bhawan New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Health
And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
4. Directorate of Medical Education, Through The Director,
Directorate of Medical Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Vivek Tiwari Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Yashashvi Singh Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. Sambhav Jain Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8. Megha Gupta Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
9. Manish Saha Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
10. Sanvil Anil Ghom Through The Director, Directorate of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
2
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11. Arpana Wadhvani Through The Director, Directorate Of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
12. Vidhi Arora Through The Director, Directorate Of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
13. Khushboo Thakur Through The Director, Directorate Of Medical
Education, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Selected
Candidate Under Unreserved Category In Government Medical
College Mopup Allotment List MBBS Admission Year 2021),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For the Petitioners : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate.
For the Union of India/ : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate
Respondents 1 & 2
For respondents 3 & 4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate.
D.B: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Order on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J
04.04.2022
1. The issue pertain to admission in medical college. The primary prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner may be allowed to participate in mop-up round of counseling.
2. As per the petitioner, she appeared in the NEET Examination for admission to MBBS for which the result was declared on 19.01.2022 and the petitioner obtained 549 marks vide Annexure P-4 and the All India Rank was 47320 and the percentile of marks was 96.9316306. In the first round of selection, 3 counseling was held on 19.01.2022 and she was not selected in the order of merit. The counseling of second notification was made on 05th February 2022 and she was not selected. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 31st of March 2022 (Annexure P-1) wherein it was notified that the mop-up round would be conducted off-line and the tentative date of counseling would be 02nd April 2022. The petitioner contends that she was not allowed to participate in the mop-up round as she was not registered and the students who secured less marks than the petitioner have been alloted the government college seats thereby the merit was compromised. It is further contended that she could not get the seat in the first and second round of counseling, which is purely on the merit. In the mop- up round, on the basis of first come first serve, the merit has been given a go-bye. As such, it is prayed that the the petitioner may be further allowed to participate in the mop-up round and it may be re-conducted and she is ready and willing to deposit the amount and get her registered so that on merit her candidature may be considered.
3. The case was taken up yesterday i.e., 03.04.2022 though it being a holiday wherein the appearance of the State was marked and looking to the urgency of the issue, it was fixed today i.e., 04.04.2022 after notice to the respondent students.
4. Learned State Counsel appearing on respondents 3 & 4 would submit that in respect of counseling, rules have been framed by the State Government which are known as Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bautik Chikitsa Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018. He would submit that according to Rule 7(xvi), the registration would be necessary in order to consider the candidature of a student for admission in MBBS or other 4 courses. He would submit that in the instant case since registration itself was not done, as such, the candidate of the petitioner was not considered in mop up round.
5. We have perused the documents filed along with the petition. No reply has been filed. The issue raised in this case revolves around the allotment of the seats which are numbering into 9 to the Government Medical Colleges under the Unreserved Category. Respondents 5 to 13 have been directed to be served the notice of this petition through E-Mail yesterday, however, no representation is made on their behalf.
6. Admittedly, in the instant case, initially when the first two lists were published about the admission to the medical college, the petitioner was not selected in order of merit. Now the last round which comes up for admission is mop-up round. It appears that the mop-up rounds are made on the principle of "first come first serve" as also on merit provided the students must possess all the requisite documents. In the instant case, when the first result was declared on 19.01.2022, the merit of the petitioner was clear. When the merit lists of the candidates are clear, then in the mop-up round if the other students are given preference with less marks containing it would have an effect to supersede the merit. In the given facts of this case when the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount and get registration and when there are still chances of petitioner who can be considered, it would be too technical to deprive her with the aid of Rules of 2018.
5
7. The Supreme Court in Asha versus Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Head Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 has laid down the strict criteria in respect of admissions. It is observed that it was not necessary to plead and prove the malafides, misconduct of favoritism and nepotism on the part of the parties concerned but at the end, there cannot be any reason to disregard the candidate who is higher in merit. The court further held that criteria for selection has to be merit alone and in fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to the such courses. to the admission. It is further held that it will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy by improper methods of admission and there cannot be any circumstances where the rule of merit can be compromised. For the sake of ready reference, extracts of paras 21 & 24 are reproduced here-in- below:
"21. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the Scheme formulated by this court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstances where the rule of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a causality. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this court that merit alone the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of law. (Ref.: Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433; Harshali v. State 6 of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 464; Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Sharwan Kumar v. DG of Health Services 1993 Supp (1) SCC
632. 24 . ......... Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the authorities concerned to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e., strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations."
8. The Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri Vs. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146 held that for admission in the medical colleges, the merit should have the primacy subject as institutional preference. In the instant case, even if the petitioner was not registered for the mop-up round for some reason or the other, whether the criteria of merit can be shelved is a question. Certainly the answer would be negative as the students appear and get the ranks in the entrance examination and the competition to get an admission is like a blood bath. If the merit is given a go-bye then "first come first serve" along with the merit would be the synonym to procedure of booking railway tickets on first come first serve on urgency. Therefore, only because of the fact that the registration was not done for the mop up round, the merit of the petitioner cannot be given a back seat. It would be too technical for a Court to over reach the principles laid down by the Supreme Court wherein the merit is given primary 7 importance. When the petitioner student has approached the Court and few of the students who are ranked below the petitioner are admitted then in such a case, naturally the justice would be deemed to be defeated on the basis of technicalities. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner be given a fair chance of counseling to participate in mop-up round for the seats in Government college as earlier the interim order was passed by this court on 03.04.2022 and direction was given that the seats which were filled up in the mop-up round numbering into 9 of unreserved category, would not be finalized. Accordingly, it is directed that the mop-up round be re-conducted and the petitioner shall be permitted to participate therein and thereafter the list may be modified.
9. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI N.K.CHANDRAVANSHI
JUDGE JUDGE
Rao