NEET UG : Madras HC Criticises Student For Claiming Dual Nativity, Calls Upon Centre And College To Decide About His Admission

Justice CV Karthikeyan held that by doing so, he had denied an opportunity to another student who would have applied only under one state. According to the court, such an act had to be taken note of seriously.

"It is clear that the fifth respondent had applied for a medical seat both in Puducherry and in Kerala. He should not have done that… I will have to take a serious view on this aspect and therefore, I would necessarily have to issue a Mandamus that the fifth respondent had obtained a seat in JIPMER, Puducherry surreptitiously and on the basis of a false declaration".

The court also added that it was not for the court to advise a public servant on how to perform their duty. At the same time, due to the careless attitude of the respondent college, a student belonging to Puducherry was denied admission to another student who had claimed dual nativity. Since the court cannot cancel the seat of the student, it noted that it was for the college and the authorities to take necessary action.

"A student, a native of Puducherry had been denied medical education only owing to the careless attitude of the respondents herein. This Court cannot cancel the seat of the said student but can direct the respondents to take necessary action on the basis of the declaration that the fifth respondent had obtained a seat through a false declaration. To that extent, a Mandamus is issued".

The petitioner was a student who had also participated in the JIPMER examination for MBBS for the academic year 2022-23 and had applied for the Puducherry General Category. He was however allotted the JIPMER Puducherry Internal Karaikal campus instead of the Puducherry Campus. Upon inquiry, he came to know that candidates who had claimed residence in other states had applied for admission and were allotted seats in the Puducherry internal quota. 

He contended that even previously the courts have come down heavily upon persons claiming the benefit of residency in more than one state and had directed the institutions to obtain an undertaking from the students specifying that they have not opted and claimed the benefit of residency in any other State or Union territory. He claimed that the respondent student had claimed residence in Kerala for the purpose of KEAM 2022 and in Puducherry. He had thus given a false undertaking and gone against the directions of the court.

The respondent student, on the other hand, submitted that he had appeared for the NEET UG MBBS examination 2022 and secured 621 marks out of 720. Since he had studied in schools affiliated with Kerala Education Board, he appeared for the KEAM 2022. He further submitted that he had claimed under the Non-Keralite category for which residence within Kerala was not mandatory and thus had not claimed dual nativity. He added that he had not attended counseling and had not taken further steps toward seeking a medical seat.

The court was however not convinced by this submission. From the information received from the Commissioner, Officer of Entrance Examination, it was observed that the candidate had given his address in Kerala which stood proof to the fact that he had in fact claimed dual residency.

Case Title: Saminathan v Union of India and others