Utkarsh Mittal v. Maulana Azad Medical College & Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “In the premise, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) pass an order directing respondent no. 1 and respondent no.2. to indicate the position of remaining vacant seats in their respective colleges; and/or

(ii) pass an order directing respondent nos. 3-5 to grant admission to the petitioner in MS (Orthopaedics) either respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2 college; and/or

(iii) pass such other order or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared for NEET-PG, 2022 examination on 21.05.2022. The results were declared on 08.06.2022. The petitioner secured a rank of 18715. Respondent No. 3 undertook counselling process for admission, but the petitioner did not find his place, being less in merit. The Medical Counselling Committee

(MCC) conducted first, second and mop up round counselling followed by stray round and special stray round. In none of the counsellings, petitioner could get any seat of his choice. The petitioner, however, had come to know about vacancy of few seats in respondents Colleges, then on 06.12.2022, the petitioner visited respondent Nos. 1 and 2 College to accommodate him on one of the seats, but it was of no avail. A petition was filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed with liberty to approach this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two seats still vacant in respondent Nos. 1 and 2 College. According to him, in mop-up round, two seats were not taken into consideration and they were not shown in the available vacancy. He, therefore, submits that since two seats were not shown in the mop-up round, therefore, there was no question of opting those seats by any of the students either in mop-up round or in stray vacancy round. Resultantly, those two seats remained vacant and if those two seats were allowed to go waste, the same would be a national loss. The Government has spent considerable money and infrastructure to maintain the seats and if the seats are not filled up to their full strength, the same would be against public interest. He further states that those two seats are not being sought against any other candidate but the seats are still vacant, therefore, the petitioner be

4. This matter was listed yesterday i.e., on 02.03.2023 and this court called upon the respondents to explain about the vacancy position with respondent Nos. 1 and 2-College.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that all seats were earlier filled up; however, on account of resignation by two candidates on 11.11.2022, two seats had fallen vacant. He, however, submits that on account of resignation the security amount etc., was to be forfeited and those candidates have challenged their forfeiture in writ petitions, which are pending. It is thus seen that two seats in respondent No. 1- College are admittedly vacant as of now.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, however, opposes the petition and submits that once the entire counselling is over no seats can be allotted to any other candidate. According to them, there is a known procedure to be followed for allotment of the seats as per the schedule. After conducting the first and second round of counselling the mop up round is conducted and once the mop up round is over the stray vacancy round was to take place. In the instant academic year i.e., 2022- 2023 it’s not only the stray vacancy round was conducted but even thereafter, the special stray vacancy round was also conducted. It is stated that by 14.01.2023, the entire allotment of seats and admission etc. is over and as of now no admission can be directed to be given on the basis of the vacancy position.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Astha Goel and Ors. v. The Medical Counselling Committee and Ors.,[1] Board of 2022 SCC OnLine SC 734 5 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001692 Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. Priyambada Sharma and Ors.,[2] Dental Council of India v. Sailendra Sharma and Ors.[3] and Vinay D. v. Union of India and Ors.[4]

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. This court finds that after 14.01.2023, there is no subsequent round of counselling. The counselling committee after conduction of stray round vacancy has issued the advertisement for conducting special stray vacancy round and that stage is also over. It is to be seen that an endeavour was made to fill up all available vacancies by conducting special stray round. Since the petitioner was not allotted any seat on the basis of merit position till a special stray round, therefore, at this stage there is no reason to consider his claim for grant of admission on any vacant seat. If this process of allotting seat after a seat falls vacant in any of the colleges continues, the admission process will never come to an end. The courses in question relate to Post Graduation, the same requires special training etc. and it has certain time schedule to be maintained. Grant of any admission to the petitioner at this stage without allowing the seat in question to other meritorious candidates is bound to result in compromising the merit position of other meritorious candidates those who may have better position than the petitioner. The mid-term admission is also not permissible to be granted in specialised courses such as PG, super speciality etc. Such an exercise would result in half trained professionals. MANU/SC/1353/2022 MANU/SC/1385/2022 MANU/DEOR/132374/2022

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh[5] has held that no admissions can be granted after the scheduled date. The MCI in that case was directed to ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of the course, the date of its commencement and the last date for admission. It was directed that in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, appropriate action shall be taken by the MCI. The principal laid down in the case of Madhu Singh (Supra) have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. UOI and Ors.[6] Besides other, it has been held that the time schedule for grant of admission to Post Graduate courses shall be adhered to and for granting admission, the merit determined by competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision like grant of marks by mode of interview or any other mode. The same principles were laid down in the case of Supreet Batra & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors 7. In paragraph No. 7 of the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that it would not be advisable to go on altering the scheme as and when seats are vacant. What is to be borne in mind is that broad equality will have to be achieved and not that it should result in any mathematical exactitude. If the process to fill up the seat is to be adopted till the last seat is filled up it will become an endless process. Such a process is not the object of the scheme formulated for admission.

11. In the matter of Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. v. Union of India 8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the