Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Prakash Shrivastava and Shailendra Shukla, JJ., dismissed a writ petition which was filed praying for a direction to permit the petitioner to take part in counselling session for admission in MBBS course.

The petitioner had appeared in NEET 2020 Examination and had scored 600 marks with 98.52364 percentile by securing 1995 Rank in All India Merit. The time schedule for online registration by the eligible candidates on M.P. Online Portal was between 1-11-2020 to 10-11-2020. According to the petitioner, on 3-11-2020 the petitioner had tried, but there was failure of link, therefore, petitioner could not register for counselling and he kept on unsuccessfully trying till 10-11-2020. After which he had contacted the respondents and made a prayer for opening the link for registration, but the same was not accepted.

The counsel for the respondent, Pushyamitra Bhargava with Devashish Dubey submitted that the petitioner had created his profile on 3rd November, but thereafter he had not made any attempt to register himself. They further submitted that even the intimation through SMS was sent to the petitioner and there was no failure of link because thousands of students had registered themselves without any complaint and that the petitioner had got admission in BDS Course through all India quota, therefore, he did not take steps to register himself in M.P. Online counselling and now after expiry of time limit he was trying for reopening of the link which was not permissible.

The Court after perusing all the records observed that petitioner had created a profile for the first time on 3-11-2020 and thereafter nothing further was done. The Court further explained that in terms of Rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasyik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 as amended, it was necessary for the candidate to get himself registered for counselling within the time limit and thereafter no change was permissible and after the second round of counselling the registration will be opened again for Mop Up round in which the applicants not registered earlier could also get themselves register.

The Court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court provided by the respondent in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 and held that petitioner was not entitled to issuance of a direction to the respondents to open the link for his registration in the counselling, however, petitioner would be entitled to register himself as per Rule 6 when the registration opens for mop up round. The Court dismissed the appeal.[Naman Porwal v. State of MP,  2020 SCC OnLine MP 2756, decided on 27-11-2020]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while addressing the present petition issued directions with regard to the counselling process at the time of admission into Medical Postgraduate.

Petitioner a qualified doctor filed the present petition praying to preserve his admission at the Maulana Azad Medical college for MD (Pathology).

Petitioner belongs to the Economically Weaker Section and holds an EWS certificate from the State of Kerala. Petitioner had appeared for NEET Examination on 5-01-2020.

After the results, as a procedural step, the petitioner had to register himself for counselling for various quotas wherein he applied for the All India Quota, Central Inst. Quota and the Delhi University Quota.

Petitioner had obtained a seat for MD (Pathology) in MAMC and after the process for admission was completed in the evening he was informed by the college staff that he had been wrongfully allotted a seat under the Delhi University Quota and thus his admission could not be confirmed.

He did not get any clarity from the authorities on the said decision and hence filed the present petition.

Decision and Analysis

Delhi University Quota

Bench on perusal of the averments and facts of the present matter observed that there was no doubt about the fact that the petitioner ought to have been conscious of the fact that he would not have been eligible under the Delhi University Quota.

Prior to the registration for counseling, the eligibility criteria for each of the institutional quotas are already set.

Court observed that in order to avail of a PG seat in Delhi University Quota, the candidate must have passed his/her final MBBS from Delhi University.

Petitioner is clearly not qualified from the Delhi University Quotaand he was at best entitled to a seat in the All India Quota or in the State Quota for Kerala depending upon his rank.

Hence in view of the above-stated position, Court opines that the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility for being considered in DU Quota and therefore the relief sought is not tenable.

Further, the Court added that the said confusion could have been avoided if there were proper checks at different levels of counselling.

The Court while being empathetic with the position in which the Petitioner currently finds himself, however, cannot direct confirmation of his admission in MAMC under the Delhi University Quota.

Bench directed the State of Kerala to allot any unfilled seat to the petitioner in a post-graduate medical course to enable him to take admission on or before 31-08-2020.

To avoid situations as arose in the present case, the Court passed the following directions:

  • At the time of registration for counselling there shall be a specific field in which candidates would be required to fill up with details of the college and the University from where they have completed their M.B.B.S. course.
  • Upon the said field being incorporated, the system should be designed in such a manner that only those quotas for which the candidates are eligible would be made available to the candidates.
  • After registration, prior to the allotment of seats, the data submitted by candidates shall be cross-verified with the data available with MCC so that wrong allotment is not made.

In view of the above, the present petition was disposed of. [Dr Machat Balakrishnan Menon v. Medical Council of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1086, decided on 25-08-2020]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J., disposed of a petition with the direction given to the petitioner to apply for study leave from the post of Medical Officers in State Health Department to undergo PG Medical Courses in Government Medical Colleges of the State.

The facts were that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in 2019. In the meantime, the petitioners also applied for Entrance Examination, i.e. (NEET) for undergoing PG Medical Courses in Government Medical Colleges of the State. The petitioners qualified the NEET examination in 2019. It was submitted that since the petitioner was serving as Medical Officer in State Health Department, he should be allowed to undergo Post Graduation in the discipline, which should be allotted after applying study leave as per notified rules.

The Court held that in case the petitioners intended to join PG Course, they would either have to forgo the appointment or apply to the respondents for study leave, if permissible. They cannot be permitted, on their own, to undergo PG courses while being in the service of respondent-department. Such unauthorized absence from duty would entail loss of appointment and discharge of the petitioners from their appointment. Thus the Court held that the petitioners were free to apply for study leave. It might be the case that they might not be eligible to get the study leaves till they complete their three years’ mandatory service as required under the aforesaid SRO, but the Government, in appropriate cases to mitigate individual hardship, may relax the aforesaid three years prescription. The minutes of meeting of the Commissioner/ Secretary Health and Medical Education stated that “…6. to facilitate the career progression of the in-service doctors who have not completed their three years of service/probationary period may also be allowed to pursue their PG Courses with the condition that the period spent by them on PG Courses shall be treated as leave”.

Thus the petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioners to approach the respondents for grant of study leave. [Sukhil Raina v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 291, Order dated 01-04-2019]