NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Not finding any illegality in decision of the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and the Delhi University in rectifying conversion algorithm where Scheduled Castes-Children/Women's (SC-CW) seats were initially proposed to be converted to Unreserved-Children/Women's (UR-CW) seats, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed “The correction of an unintentional legal error prior to the counselling process cannot be construed as a procedural breach or administrative fault. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for intervention. The case exemplifies the courts' measured approach to reservation-related disputes, prioritizing procedural integrity and Constitutional principles.”

The petitioners sought relief against the denial of admission to the MBBS Course under the NEET-UG 2024-25 in the Delhi University. The petitioners are eligible for educational concession for admission to Delhi University against the Armed Forces quota.

Under the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme for NEET 2024, SC (CW) seats were initially supposed to be converted to UR (CW) seats during the third round of counselling. However, before the third round of counseling, this algorithm was changed and unfilled ST (CW) and SC (CW) seats would revert to ST and SC categories, respectively, rather than being converted to UR (CW). The respondent authorities said that the change was made align with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court rulings.

The petitioners contended that despite being eligible for MBBS seats in DU/GGS IP Universities under the CW category, they were not allocated seats even after the third counselling round results. They argued that respondent authorities committed a serious error by failing to implement the Information Bulletin.

On the other hand, MCC submitted that the change was announced before the third round of counselling commenced and that as per the Information bulletin, the conversion of seats were to be carried out during the round three only if the candidates belonging to the said conversion category had exhausted. It stated that no UR (CW) seats were left vacant in the third round and hence the petitioners could not have been accommodated under the CW quota.

National Medical Council (NMC) also submitted upon legal scrutiny, the initial conversion mechanism was found to be inconsistent with constitutional reservation principles and thus required modification.

The High Court noted that when horizontal reserved category seats remain unoccupied after two rounds of counselling, the Constitution and Supreme Court directives mandate redistribution of seats to ensure no allocated seat goes waste for marginalized communities. It noted that CW reserved seats in ST-CW categories revert to the main ST, SC-CW to the main SC, OBC-CW to the main OBC and UR-CW to the main UR.

Considering judicial precedents, the Court noted that to grant relief in reservation cases, the following conditions need to be met: (i) No fault attributable to the candidate; (ii) Expeditious pursuit of legal remedies; (iii) Demonstrable fault by authorities with apparent rule violations; and (iv) Proven superior merit compared to admitted candidates.

In the present case, the Court was of the view that the petitioners failed to meet the standards. It noted that the conversion algorithm for the CW Category was corrected before the third round of counseling. It stated that no substantive fault could be attributed to the respondent authorities as the initial legal inconsistency in the conversion algorithm was proactively rectified.

Observed that the 'unintentional legal error' on part of the authorities could not be considered as a procedural breach, it observed that a Court cannot issued a direction that would require the authorities to continue with an action that is legally flawed.

“Therefore, the legal infirmity in the CW Conversion Algorithm, which was inconsistent with the Constitution of India and Supreme Court rulings, was rightly rectified in accordance with Article 16(4), Article 141, and Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent no.1/MCC and the Respondent no.6/University of Delhi corrected this unintentional legal error to align the algorithm with Constitutional reservation principles. This rectification cannot be considered a post facto change in the rules of the game, as it was merely a correction made before the third round of counselling to ensure compliance with the law.”

The petitioners relied on Yashika Malik v. University of Delhi Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors (2024), where a division bench of Delhi High Court directed Delhi University to create supernumerary Seat to a eligible candidate belonging to CW category, who was denied admission in the first round of counselling because of the non-existence of vacant CW reserved category seats.

However, the Court distinguished Yashika Malik from the present case and noted that in the former, the petitioner was initially prevented from participating in counselling due to an erroneous cancellation of her Education Concession Certificate (ECC). Noting that the current petitioners stood in a different position, it said “The current Petitioners, however, stand in a fundamentally different position. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any administrative mistake or procedural irregularity that prevented their participation in counselling. The Petitioners have not been barred due to documentation issues. Therefore, the judgment in Yashika Malik (supra) case bears no substantial similarity to the current circumstances. The Courts have consistently emphasized that administrative remedies are exceptional and cannot be applied universally without demonstrating specific procedural lapses or administrative errors.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that under Information Bulletin, MCC has the discretion to make necessary changes to any provisions in the bulletin whenever required and thus the bulletin recognizes the authorities' right to alter the guidelines. It also noted, “Additionally, if there is any ambiguity or confusion regarding eligibility criteria, counselling procedures, or candidate registration, the interpretation given by MCC and DGHS shall be final and binding. This clause ensures that the authorities retain the flexibility to clarify or modify rules when necessary, allowing the counselling process to function smoothly and in accordance with established policies.”

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385