NEET 2020 : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Admission To "Higher Option Seat" In AIQ
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, dismissed as withdrawn a petition challenging a December 15 judgment of Kerala High Court which had dismissed the plea of a student seeking admission to a "higher option seat" in Allotment to medical and allied courses in terms of NEET Rank in the All India Quota Seats and KEAM counselling for state of Kerala.A bench of Justices Indira...
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, dismissed as withdrawn a petition challenging a December 15 judgment of Kerala High Court which had dismissed the plea of a student seeking admission to a "higher option seat" in Allotment to medical and allied courses in terms of NEET Rank in the All India Quota Seats and KEAM counselling for state of Kerala.
A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta orally observed that since the petitioner had already taken admission in terms of the All India Quota after second round of counselling, the same could not be allowed.
"We have gone through the well-reasoned judgment of the HC. The petitioner has after the second round of counselling has been admitted in the AIQ. Only two rounds of counselling is permitted." the bench orally observed in the case Najma PM v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations and others.
After the bench expressed no inclination to entertain the petition, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it. Accordingly, the bench granted permission to withdraw the petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
While dismissing her petition, the High Court had observed :
"It is seen that the respondents have conducted the counseling in accordance with the Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2019 as well as in tune with the directions and decisions of the apex court. As per the provisions contained in Appendix F a further counseling is not permissible once the petitioner has been admitted in the 2nd round of counseling under the All India quota. Therefore, though it is seen that several of the candidates ranked juniors to the petitioner have got admission in the state quota, a further opportunity to participate in another round of allotment is not permissible for the petitioner, in the light of the provisions in the Regulations as well as the judgment of the apex court."
The petition stated that the High Court had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by thereby resulting in wrongful denial of admission to the Petitioner in such Government medical colleges which were in the option list of the Petitioner in both, the All India Quota Counselling and the KEAM counselling of State of Kerala, while not considering the merit secured by the Petitioner in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)- 2020.
Further, the petitioner had contended that 24 candidates ranking below the Petitioner have been allotted seats in such colleges, while denying admission to the Petitioner in the said colleges.
The Petitioner had appeared in the NEET (UG) and secured All India Rank No. 11837 and Kerala State Medical Rank No. 1695. She belongs to Muslim community which is in the category of OBC. In the first round of counselling against 15% seats in the All India Quota, the Petitioner was allotted to a college in Andaman and on the basis of allotment in the State Quota, the Petitioner was allotted to Amala Medical College, Trissur and she has joined there. However, in the second round of counselling for AIQ seats, she was allotted to a seat in Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, Karnataka, and she joined there.
It was the grievance of the petitioner that 24 candidates ranked below the Petitioner have been allotted seats in Government Medical Colleges in Kerala which were high up in the option list submitted by the Petitioner.
The plea stated that gross injustice has been meted out to the Petitioner because she is being denied admission to a college where she should be preferred solely on the basis of her merit.
Further, it was averred that due to COVID-19 pandemic, many States within the territory of India did not conduct the first rounds of the respective State counselling, because of which numerous candidates did not participate in the second round of AIQ counselling. Consequently, around 2000 seats in the AIQ remained vacant.
In this context, the petitioner stated that High Court ought to have considered that the injustice could have been avoided if the huge number of seats reverted back to the States were offered to high ranking candidates including the petitioner, who could have chosen the available higher option.