[NEET] Back Door Entries Being Granted To Certain Privileged And Highly Connected Candidates In Pvt Colleges, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that certain candidates with lower marks had been granted back door entries in private medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh while petitioners who belonged to different states had been refused opportunity to participate in counselling based on their lack of domicile.

Eleven petitioners, non-residents/ non-domicile of State of UP, appeared in the National Eligibility and Entrance Test conducted by National Testing Agency in Dental Colleges & passed with marks ranging between 108-132. Petitioners belong to OBC/ SC category for which cut-off had been declared as 107 whereas the cut-off for general category is 138.

Counsel for petitioners submitted that as per guidelines/policy for candidates appearing in counselling for MBBS/BDS Course for the academic session 2023-24 in the Government Medical Colleges as well as for Private Medical Colleges, counselling is followed by mop-up round. The eligibility criteria in Clause 2 (2) provided that only domicile of UP could apply for admission in MBBS/BDS Course in all Government Medicals/Dental Colleges/Medical Universities/Minority institutions. However, for admission in Private Medical/Dental Colleges, Clause 2(4) domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh was not a necessary criteria. Further, Clause 7 specifically provides that there will be no reservation of any kind in private Medical/Dental Colleges.

It was argued that counselling was conducted centrally by Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh for the session 2023-24. When the petitioners tried to apply for counselling in their categories, it showed “not eligible” for both 1^st and 2^nd round of counselling as well as in the mop-round and stray vacancy round. However, admissions where provided to candidates who had obtained lower marks than petitioners and were domicile of State of UP.

Further, it was argued that there has been no policy change since academic session 2021-22, where candidates with different domiciles had been granted admissions. Change in criteria for academic session 2023-24 is arbitrary and against policy/guidelines, argued the petitioners. Lastly, it was pointed out that 780 seats in MBBS/BDS course are still lying vacant and petitioners were eligible for admission on the said seats.

Regarding the instructions obtained by Counsel for State, the Court observed that on one hand, Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh acknowledged that there is no reservation in private Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of U.P. and seats are unreserved (open) while on the other hand, shelter of Government Order by Union wherein minimum cut of marks for OBC/SC candidates in NIIT (UG)-2023 is fixed at 107 has been taken to justify admitting candidates belonging to OBC/SC category and having domicile of the State of UP.

“When there is no reservation in the Private Medical Colleges, how can students at point nos.2, 3 and 4, who have much lower marks than the petitioners, can be admitted in the Private Medical Colleges. It is apparent from the record that back door entries have been granted to certain privileged and highly connected candidates,” observed the Court.

Noting discrepancies and contradictions in the instructions obtained by the Counsel for State, bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar restrained the respondent authorities from filling up 11 under graduate seats in the on-going counselling in the stray vacancies.

While impleading the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Medical Health & Education in the petition, the Court directed that personal affidavits be filed by Principal Secretary, Medical Health & Education and Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow detailing “as to how OBC/SC candidates with marks of 120, 114 and 125, were granted admissions in Private Medical Colleges, wherein the reservation is not applicable and what was the reason for not allowing the candidates of outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, who have higher marks than the petitioners, to participate in the counselling.”

However, when the matter was taken up for hearing the on Wednesday, the Court expressed serious displeasure on incomplete information being supplied to it by way of personal affidavits. Accordingly, the Court adjourned the case granting time to State counsels to seek better instructions.

Advocate Nipun Singh assisted by Rishi Upadhayay appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal appeared for the State.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 364