Illegal Allotment of MD Respiratory Medicine Seat: HC Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost on KEA

Bengaluru: Holding that allotment of an MD Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of a candidate was wholly illegal, the Karnataka High Court recently imposed Rs 1 lakh cost on Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA).

The HC Division bench was considering a plea by an In-service doctor who was allotted the MD Respiratory Medicine seat in Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases during the first round of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2021 examination. However, KEA later cancelled his seat and allotted to another candidate during the subsequent round of counselling.

While considering the matter, the HC bench comprising Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare opined that the "unilateral cancelling of seat allotted to the petitioner and allotment of the seat in favour of sixth respondent are bad in law."

Setting aside the cancellation order dated 25.02.2022, the bench imposed Rs 1 lakh cost on KEA for the illegal allotment of the seat and ordered, "The KEA shall allot the MD in Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf within two weeks from today."

The plea was filed by an in-service doctor working as an Assistant Surgeon in Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research. After appearing in NEET-PG 2021, the petitioner claimed a seat as in-service category under SC quota working in an Autonomous Institution. He approached the Institute for an NOC to pursue PG studies and the same was issued.

Although the petitioner was allotted an MD Respiratory Medicine Seat in Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases in the first round of counselling on 02.02.2022 and got admitted in the said course, after one month i.e. on 02.03.2022, KEA sent a copy of a letter dated 25.02.2022, written by DME, through WhatsApp calling upon the Executive Director, KEA, to cancel the petitioner's seat. 

However, the seat was not shown in the second round of counselling but clandestinely allotted to another doctor. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the plea.

The petitioner's counsel argued that DME's instruction to KEA to cancel the seat without issuing notice and hearing the petitioner was violative of principles of natural justice. It was highlighted that the petitioner had submitted the NOC issued by Kayadeva Institute and the same was accepted by KEA. Therefore, it was the Institute's duty to forward the petitioner's name in the list of in-service quota.

In any event, the cancellation of the petitioner's seat without recording any reason is illegal, argued the petitioner's counsel. It was submitted that the petitioner paid the fees and started attending classes and allotment of the seat without showing the availability of the canceled seat in the second round of counselling is illegal and arbitrary.

On the other hand, the counsel for KEA submitted that the petitioner was allotted a seat under the in-service quota. At the time of document verification, the petitioner had stated that he would submit the NOC. However, he did not submit the same though the petitioner was allotted a seat under the in-service quota. It was further submitted that all the candidates had been allotted seats strictly in accordance with their ranking.

Meanwhile, the counsel for NMC submitted that KEA did not allot the seats in accordance with the law. He also assailed the manner in which KEA has been allotting the seats. It was contended by the NMC counsel that the malpractice took place in the allotment of seat to the other doctor. He prayed that a thorough investigation needed to be conducted into the affairs of the KEA.

While considering the matter, the bench perused the original file maintained by DME, which contained more than one original letter dated 25.02.2022. The Deputy Director of Medical education who appeared in Court sought to explain that more than one original letter is prepared and all are signed by the DME. The court noted that the signature contained in the letter dated 25.02.2022 written by DME does not tally with the signature contained on the letter dated 25.02.2022 found in the original file.

Further, the bench perused the verification slip issued by KEA, and perusing the same, the bench noted that the petitioner submitted the NOC issued by his employer. The counsel for KEA submitted that the NOC produced was for DNB course and petitioner was required to submit the NOC for MD course.

The bench noted KEA is a statutory body to conduct exams and the document verification slip contained various documents and the verifying officer is required to note whether the correct document was produced or not. It was further noted that the entry by the verifying officer mentioned as 'Y' in respect of the column mentioning NOC for in-service candidates.

Further, the bench took note of the fact that the petitioner was admitted on 02.02.2022 and he remitted the fees and has been attending classes. The court also recorded the fact that the counsel for Jayadeva Institute categorically stated that the Institute stands by the NOC issued to the petitioner.

It was observed by the bench that the submission of the counsel for KEA is untenable as "...the verification of the genuineness and correctness of the documents must be completed at the verification stage itself. Once the Verifying Officer has acknowledged that NOC has been submitted and testified the verification slip, it is presumed that all documents submitted were in order. If the NOC was for DNB Course and not for the MD Course, the KEA ought to have rejected petitioner's candidature at that stage itself."

"...even if it is assumed that the NOC was found defective at a later stage, as rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the KEA ought to have obtained a clarification from Jayadeva Institute," observed the bench, further recording the fact that the petitioner's seat has been cancelled without issuing notice to him.

Referring to DME file containing a letter from the other doctor, the bench noted, "...We are shocked to note that the DME has issued the cancellation letter on the very same day on which he has received the letter submitted by Dr. Pradeep/sixth respondent. In normal circumstances, a complaint/representation received by the DME is marked to the concerned section. The hireracy of officials right from the Dealing Assistant till the DME record their findings in the note sheet. It is only thereafter that an appropriate order is issued based on the file notings."

"It is regrettable to note that an High Officer of the rank of DME has choosen to direct cancellation of petitioner's seat without following any standard official procedure and without issuing any notice to petitioner," the bench further observed.

At this outset, the High Court also referred to the notification dated 23.11.2023, which provides a set of rules for selection and admission to PG medical courses. Rule 9 states that KEA may reject the application of any candidate after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. However, the bench observed that the petitioner's seat had been cancelled without giving any reasonable opportunity, which is contrary to the Rules.

The court observed that as per the letter, after the petitioner's seat was cancelled, the seat was required to be made available in the next round of counselling. However, "Surprisingly, the seat was not shown available in the next round, but it was allotted to the sixth respondent. The KEA has failed to demonstrate as to how the seat was allotted to the sixth respondent in the second round of counselling without there being any seat available," noted the bench.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the other doctor submitted that the NOC of the petitioner was incorrect and therefore his seat was cancelled and allotted to the other doctor. He further argued that even if the allotment in favour of the other doctor is held to be bad in law, the same cannot inure to the petitioner's benefit because the other doctor had already completed one year of the course. The counsel for KEA offered to allot a vacant seat in the same course and in the same institute to the petitioner.

However, the bench noted at this outset, "In our view, this argument is to be noted only to be rejected because, the collective stand of the KEA and the sixth respondent is to defeat petitioner’s claim and to cover up the mis-management and illegal allotment to sixth respondent."

"Therefore, we are of the opinion that the unilateral cancelling of seat allotted to petitioner and allotment of the seat in favour of the sixth respondent are bad in law," opined the bench.

Allowing the plea, the bench imposed Rs 1 lakh cost on KEA holding that the allotment of MD in Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of the other doctor is wholly illegal and accordingly, the bench set-aside the concerned allotment. Directing KEA to allot the MD in Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of the petitioner, the bench ordered to issue necessary orders in that behalf within two weeks from the date of order.

Setting aside the cancellation order dated 25.02.2022, the bench further ordered, "Out of the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be payable to the petitioner and the remaining sum shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/kea-respiratory-medicine-233112.pdf

Also Read: HC relief to doctor, KEA slapped Rs 5 lakh cost for blocking MD Radio Diagnosis seat