NEET | Merit Exclusive Criteria To Allocate College, Technical Formalities Can't Frustrate Fundamental Rights Of Meritorious Candidates: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court directed the Centre and the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) to consider the candidature of petitioners for allocation of collages based on their merits in NEET UG 2024 (“NEET”) which was rejected by the Centre on the grounds that the petitioners were not able to submit certain affidavit/ certificates in the prescribed format on time.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that firstly, the allocation process was conducted in between the period of holidays on account of Diwali, 2024 and in that too, the time period provided to the candidates for submitting the documents was very less. Secondly, it was opined that the merit scored by the petitioners should be the exclusive criteria for allocation of collages and the fundamental rights of meritorious petitioner ought not be frustrated due to technical formalities.

“this Court is of the view that consideration of candidate solely on the basis of merit, un-biasness and transparency in the selection process, are the ethos of the selection/ admission process. A good college, as per the merit scored is the fruit that the candidates obtain resultant to their dedication and aspirations in life and in no situation the same can be compromised and the rule of merit should supersede over any other technical instruments.”

The petitions were field by a bunch of students who had appeared for NEET and on October 23, 2024, they received a notification for a Stray Vacancy Round allotment for which they were called for document verification scheduled on October 28, 2024 from 9 AM to 12 PM. During the document verification process, petitioners were asked to furnish an affidavit/ certificate since the subject “Biology” was not appearing in their Class XI marksheets.

The authorities were informed that the petitioners had passed Class XI during Covid as per the directions of the Central and State Government as per which no subjects were mentioned in the Mark Sheets. Irrespective, the required affidavit/ certificate was submitted by the petitioners, signed by their school authorities, on October 31, 2024, i.e. a bit after the prescribed time.

In the provisional Merit List, the name of the petitioner appeared but in the Allotment List, the petitioner was ousted, and the allocation was awarded to the candidates who were less meritorious as compared to the petitioner. When the grievance was raised via mail on October 30 and 31, no heed was paid to the same.

It was contended by the counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity was provided by the respondent for furnishing the required certificate in the prescribed format as compared to the time provided in earlier rounds of counseling throughout India. Furthermore, it was argued that the merit scored by the candidate should be the exclusive criteria for allocation of seats.

On the contrary, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the notification for the Stray Round Vacancy had explicitly mentioned that Class XI Marksheet along with relevant subjects was mandatory to be submitted during the document verification process. Furthermore, it was argued that the Apex Court had clearly opined that time played a vital role in such examinations and thus the schedule had to be strictly followed.

After hearing both sides, the Court observed that it was apparent that the respondents had conducted the entire process in great haste, that too, during the vacation period. No sufficient or reasonable time was granted to the petitioners and no prudent person could obtain the requisite certificate from the school authorities in such limited time and that too during vacation period.

“Nevertheless, while taking note of the period during which the said Stray Vacancy Round counseling was scheduled (in-between 28.10.2024 and 03.11.2024) it can be straightforwardly construed that by any endeavor the said certificate in the prescribed format, would have not made available to the respondents amid the public and office holidays… the said reasons are uncontrollable by the petitioners.”

The Court further observed that despite this, the Petitioners were vigilant about their rights and have approached the Court as soon as it was possible i.e. soon after Diwali vacations.

The Court also stated that despite the subject “Biology” being undisputedly revealed in Class XII mark-sheet, the respondents had failed to substantiate the rationale behind the mandatory provision of the same in the Class-XI mark-sheet.

Furthermore, the Court referred to the case of Asha v Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. in which the Supreme Court held that if the petitioners were not at fault and they have pursued their rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, the cut-off date could not be used as a technical instrument to deny admission to meritorious students. In rarest of the rare cases or in exceptional circumstances, the Courts might have to make exception to the cut off date.

Reference was also made to the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in which it was held that merit alone must be the criteria for admission to MBBS courses. Hence, the rule of merit should not be defeated at any cost. Further, in the case of Dolly Chandra v Chairman JEE, it was opined that there could be some relaxation in submission of proof and it would not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertained to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not result in rejection of candidature.

In light of this analysis, the Court opined that the petitioner fell under the ambit of rarest of rare cases and allowed the petitions observing that merit should be the sole criteria to allot seats/colleges and technical formalities could not frustrate fundamental rights of meritorious petitioner.

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to consider candidature of petitioners for the allocation and cancel the candidatures for such candidates who were given allocation in place of the petitioners despite being less meritorious.

Title: Kanchan Kumawat v Union of India & Ors, and other related petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 344

Click Here To Read/Download Order