Court Cannot Examine Correctness Of Policy Decision Which Is Supported By Sufficient Material And Complies With Article 14: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has reiterated that once it is found that there exists sufficient material supporting a particular policy decision and it falls within the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution, the power of judicial review does not extend to determine the correctness of that policy decision or finding out an alternative.
The above ruling came during the dismissal of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus to direct respondents to allot an MBBS seat to the petitioner.
Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, presiding over the case, observed, “No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives.”
“Once we find that parameters of Article of 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive. In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to suggest that the policy decision taken by respondents is arbitrary and based on irrational consideration, mala fide or against statutory provisions, the same calls for no interference by this court in exercise, of power of judicial review,” Justice Sharan emphasised.
The petitioner, an aspirant for admission to undergraduate medical courses, appeared for the NEET Examination 2023. Following this, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB) issued a notice on 24.09.2023 for the 3rd Round of Online Counselling, for which the petitioner was eligible and applied.
The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) later published the results of the Stray Round, in which the petitioner was allocated a seat in the BDS Course. However, on 29.09.2023, the BCECEB issued a notification stating that candidates who were allotted any seat under the All India Quota Stray Round by MCC would be ineligible for a seat in the 3rd Round of Online Counselling for the Bihar Quota. Consequently, despite having a higher ranking than some candidates allotted MBBS seats in Bihar, the petitioner was not granted a seat.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was ranked 405 in the Reserved Category Girl (RCG), and which was higher than the candidate last selected in the RCG category, who had a rank of 445. He said that this clearly indicated that candidates with significantly lower ranks than the petitioner were granted admission to the MBBS course during the third round of counselling under the State Quota.
On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that if the petitioner chose to exit and did not join the seat allotted to her during the Stray Round, as per the counselling scheme outlined by the MCC, she would be liable for the consequences outlined in the MCC guidelines. These include a one-year debarment from the NEET Examination and the forfeiture of fees.
The Court observed that to facilitate students participating in 2023 counselling, the MCC released an Information Bulletin & Counselling Scheme, which included a rule specifying:
“If a candidate is allotted a seat in the Stray Round, they must join the allotted seat/college. Failure to join the allotted seat will result in the candidate being debarred from the NEET examination for one year, along with the forfeiture of fees.”
Upon reviewing this provision, the Court remarked, “there is no scintilla of doubt that if the BCECE Board had allowed the petitioner to join the counselling for 3rd round against State quota, that would have frustrated the debarment of the petitioner from NEET examination for one year for not joining the seat allotted to her in the Stray Round by the MCC as per the provisions contained in the aforesaid allotment scheme prepared and published by the MCC.”
The Court added, “Thus, it was mandatory for the petitioner to join the seat/college allotted by the MCC to the petitioner during the stray round in view of the fact that 288 candidates (including the petitioner) who had been allotte seats in stry vacancy round to All India quota (out of altogether 2140 canddiates) were removed from the list of counselling for UGMAC-2023 for 3rd round by the BCECE Board.”
Referring to Chapter 12 of the UG NEET 2023 Information Bulletin, which provides detailed final Stray Round guidelines, the Court noted that it is clear that once a candidate is allotted a seat, the option to exit and refrain from joining is only available until the 3rd round of counselling, and even then, only with fee forfeiture and disqualification from further rounds.
Therefore, the petitioner had no option to withdraw and could not decline the seat/college given in the stray round for the All India quota, the Court said.
The Court further stated that even if the petitioner were allowed to participate in counselling without being debarred, she would not meet the eligibility criteria for MBBS admission as the cutoff for female BC candidates was set between marks 634 and 607, making the cutoff score 620. The petitioner's score of 605 would therefore not qualify her for any MBBS seat.
Considering all arguments and facts, the Court ultimately dismissed the writ application.
Case Title: Munmun Kumari v The State of Bihar & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 107