Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

5. On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent No. 2 - National Medical Commission ("NMC") and Mr. Apoorv Kurup, counsel for Respondent No. 1 - National Testing Agency ("NTA"), oppose the Petitioners request, and contend as follows:

5.1. Postponement of NEET 2022 would disrupt the entire academic cycle set under the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 2015 [hereinafter, "Regulations, 2015"] framed by the Central Government under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The same has also been noted by the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,2 which reads as under:

11. The Court also finds merit in Mr. Singhdev's contention that the timelines, as stipulated in Ashish Ranjan (Supra), have to be adhered to in order to bring the academic sessions back on track after the disruptions caused due COVID-19 pandemic. Admittedly, while NEET UG 2022 examination was delayed twice before in 2020 and 2021; however, the same was done due to COVID-19 pandemic that wreaked havoc across the country. The circumstances cited cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be equated to the unprecedented dire situation that emerged during the pandemic. In this regard, the observations made by the Supreme Court and this Court that ultimately life has to go on and lives of students cannot be put in peril and full academic years cannot be put to waste,8 are of great relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Courts have invariably always refused to entertain petitions seeking concessions qua timelines of several national-level entrance examinations such as UPSC910 and FMGE.11 Indeed, as Mr. Singhdev puts it, a delay in conducting the NEET-UG 2022 examination would impact the healthcare sector in the long run. The schedule as contemplated in Ashish Ranjan (Supra), Mr. Singhdev explains, can be achieved only in 2023, and the same would only be possible if the examinations are not postponed, and that also requires the timelines to be curtailed as compared to what was earlier the position. Any direction to reschedule is likely to have cascading effect on the healthcare sector, careers of the aspirants and would also make it difficult to achieve the original timelines. This has weighed heavily with the Court for declining the Petitioners' request.