Inadvertence No Reason To Deny Opportunity To Candidate Otherwise Entitled: Karnataka HC Permits NEET-PG Aspirant To Correct Caste & Avail Quota

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 23 years old student, who while filling-up the online registration application for National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-PG (NEET-PG), inadvertently failed to choose her caste under the quota reserved for OBC category.

A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed the petition filed by Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda and directed the National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences to permit her to correct the entry in Column No.7 of the application/score card and amend it to read from General to OBC.

Court further directed the respondents to insert her name in the order of merit in accordance with the marks in the list of candidates for consideration against the OBC quota. The bench said,

“Sheer inadvertence should not be a ground to deny a candidate of an opportunity if she is otherwise duly entitled on merit, for it would be contrary to the very objective of the NEET process itself, that is, an opportunity to the best of the lot.”

The petitioner submitted that she belongs to Vokkaliga caste which is categorised under the OBC category in Karnataka but while filling-up the online registration application, she inadvertently classified herself as competing under the General Merit Category (GMC). On a review of her application, she found that she had committed an error and accordingly, made a representation "at the threshold itself". On the said representation not being considered favourably, she approached the court.

The respondents opposed the plea saying the petitioner having been indolent and negligent does not deserve relied an any "misplaced sympathy" in such a case would have a catastrophic effect on the process.

Findings:

The bench rejected the contention of the respondents that there will be a deluge of petitions. It said, “In our considered opinion, (it is) presumptuous. We say so, because if we have to accept the same then, this Court would have to presume that the majority of the applicants have committed errors in filling up the applications. There is neither a circumstance nor any material before this Court, for this Bench to presume so. Presumption can be of a fact and it is not open for the Courts to assume certain facts, when there is no material placed before the Court to demonstrate the same.”

To further negate the argument on deluge of petitions, Court said petitioner is not seeking her name to be entered in multiple reservation Categories, but on the contrary, she is merely claiming that her name be included in respect of the quota reserved in respect of IIIA-Category. "The candidates who would be entitled are only such of those candidates who hail from the said caste.”

Court further held that a cut off mark is stipulated for every round of counselling and only such of those candidates who have scored at the cut off mark level or above, would come into consideration. "Hence, to hold that it would revise the entire list or it would straightaway enable the petitioner to become part of the group of candidates entitled for admission is misplaced.”

The court refused to rely on a Madras High Court judgment which allowed a similar writ petition but subject to the condition that the petitioner therein should be placed at the bottom of the merit list.

It said, “in our opinion, amounts to the Court altering the merit list contrary to the marks obtained by the candidates, which does not appeal to this Bench. The entire objective of the NEET exercise is to ensure that meritorious candidates are not denied their due. If that be the objective, then the direction to place a candidate at the bottom of the merit list merely because she has approached the Court, would in our opinion would not be doing complete justice to the merit of the candidate and also as noted above, would be contrary to the objective of the process of NEET which incidentally has been conceived on the insistence of the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

Court said to err is human and if such minor errors cannot be condoned, despite the petitioner having been diligent in approaching for redressal, then it would not be dispensing complete justice.

Taking into account that nearly 60 days remain for the counselling to end, Court ordered, “to deny an opportunity to the petitioner would be inequitable. It is not that the introduction of the petitioner into the merit list would open up the floodgates as the counseling depends not only on the number of candidates, but also on the cut off marks that may be fixed by the competent authority. The question of the petitioner being permitted participation would depend on the fact as to whether she has obtained the qualifying marks. Mere alteration of list will not prejudice any of the candidates found in the merit list.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition, saying that this order shall not be treated as a precedent.

Case Title: Dr Lakhsmi P Gowda AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 12859/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 330

Date of Order: 10-08-2023

Appearance: Advocate Gautam S Bharadwaj for Petitioner.

Deputy Solicitor General H.Shanthi Bhushan for R1.

AGA Laxminarayan for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order