Madhya Pradesh High Court Makes Exception For ST Candidate Who Inadvertently Selected Wrong Category For NEET Counselling

Ordinarily, the Courts are reluctant in allowing such pleas. However, in the present case, the division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) observed,

"It is very unfortunate that the petitioner, being ST Category student who comes from remote tribal areas of this country has persuaded the studies up to Class – XII and cleared NEET Examination with good rank, inadvertently has submitted the registration form under the wrong category and did not correct the same before the last date."

Thus, granting her relief, the Court made it clear that this is a special case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

'High Time That Candidates Be Made To Own Up For Their Mistakes': Madras High Court Rejects NEET Candidates' Plea For Change Of Community Status

The case of the Petitioner was that she belonged to ST Category and was a permanent resident of a tribal area in District Jhabua. She appeared for NEET-2021 under ST Category and that even her admit card, issued by the respondents, reflected her ST category status.

However, while filling the counselling form, she inadvertently registered herself under the UR category. The mistake came to her knowledge on 25.01.2022 and she immediately submitted a representation to the respondents seeking permission to correct the category, and thereafter, she approached the Court.

The State filed a reply, submitting that the Petitioner filed her registration form on 22.12.2021 and the last date of registration was 21.01.2022. She had ample time to get the said mistake corrected. After closing the registration, there was no provision to correct the entry.

It placed reliance over Rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Siksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 which states that no request for change or amendment of entries in the registration form would be considered after the cutoff date. The State relied on the decision of the Court in the case of Arushi Mahant & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., wherein, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition. However, Rule further provided that after the second round and last round of counselling (mop up), the registration shall be opened again and the students who could not get themselves registered earlier can apply for registration.

The Court examined the submissions of the parties and noted that it is a confirmed fact that the Petitioner belonged to the ST Category. It also observed that as per Rule 6 of the Admission Rules 2018, no change is permissible in the registration form before counselling after the expiry of the cut-off date. The Court then referred to its judgment in Madhav Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., which was decided recently. The Court in the said matter had held that Rule 6 was inserted by lawmakers with a conscious view that if the position or factual aspects were permitted to change, it would create chaos for the examining authorities and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Reiterating its observations in the Madhav Sharma case, the Court sided with the contentions of the State and held that-

The respondents are correct in contending that if one student is permitted to change the category it would disturb the entire selection / merit list, and it would be impossible to find out how many students will be affected. The petitioner has failed to establish as it was an inadvertent mistake or she herself filled the form in NIR / UR quota. If one candidate is permitted to change the category, large numbers of students may come to claim a change in the category in case of not getting admission to the college of their choice. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling under ST Category as per Rule 6 aforesaid.

Having made the abovementioned observation, the Court did not turn a blind eye to the conundrum of the Petitioner. Sympathising with her, the Court ordered,

"the petitioner can be permitted to re-register herself in pop up round in the last round of counselling. As a special case, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are hereby directing respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the last round of counselling by re-registration."

Case Title: Purva Balke v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 39

Click Here To Read/Download Order