NEET PG 2021: Delhi HC rejects plea challenging MCC notice modifying OBC Reservation Criteria

Dismissal from the HC bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli came after it took note of the fact that the petitioner aspirants were relying mainly on FAQ, whereas the MCC brochure and Information Bulletin of the University had clearly mentioned that the Central OBC list would be applicable for admission.

"The brochure and bulletin have to be read as a whole and compositely; merely because there was an error in the answer to one of the many FAQs, which error too was amended before the petitioners were to undertake their choice filling, cannot unfortunately, come to their aid," observed the bench as it dismissed the plea.

The petitioners approached the court challenging the Medical Counselling Committee(MCC) notice dated 10.01.2022, where the OBC reservation criteria had been modified regarding the Institutional Preference Seats in the Central Institutes.

It was the contention of the petitioners that both, under the brochure issued by the University on 10.06.2021, and the Information Bulletin issued by MCC on 03.10.2021, they, as OBC candidates in terms of the list maintained by the Delhi Government, were eligible for admission against the OBC seats in the 50% institutional preference seats.

However, MCC later on 10.01.2022, issued a revised counselling Information bulletin and it was followed by another revision on 12.02.2022. On both of these occasions, not only was the clause dealing with the reservation policy for central institutes including Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, Atal Bihari Vajpayee IMS & RML, ESIC Basaidarapur changed, but, the answer to FAQ No. 50 was also changed in the revised bulletin issued on 12.01.2022.

As per this policy, OBC reservation for PG against institutional preference seats was now restricted only to candidates in the central OBC list. Consequently, candidates like the petitioners who were falling in the Delhi OBC list were excluded from being considered for these reserved seats.

Claiming that this contradicted the policy followed in NEET-PG 2020 when candidates in Delhi OBC were eligible for admission in institutional preference seats, the aggrieved students approached the HC.

During the proceedings, the court had been informed that on 15.01.2022, the candidates were given an opportunity to change their category to unreserved from SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwD, so as to enable them to participate as an unreserved candidate in the counselling process.

Both the parties jointly submitted that the petitioners have exercised this option and MCC submitted that some of the petitioners have been allotted seats in the PG medical courses, where they have already joined.

However, the main contention of the petitioners was that the MCC had changed the 'rules of the game' after the commencement of the counselling and that too, just before when the candidates were required to fill their choices on 13.01.2022.

The second contention was that VMMC and ABVIMS are not central educational institutions within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'CEI Act') and, therefore, the MCC has no authority in law to deprive the Delhi OBC candidates of their right to be considered under the Delhi OBC quota against the 50% institutional preference seats of the University in question.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the two institutes - VMMC and ABVIMS being affiliated to the GGSIPU, which is a State University, would, therefore, fall under the category of State institutes. The candidates in the Delhi OBC list would, therefore, be entitled to be considered against the institutional preference seats and were always being extended this benefit, which has now been sought to be arbitrarily withdrawn.

On the other hand, the counsel for MCC opposed the petition and submitted that both VMMC and ABVIMS are central funded and aided institutes in central government hospitals and therefore, in order to bring uniformity in the counselling process, it was decided that the same criteria of adopting the central OBC list as is being followed in other central institutes should be adopted.

He further submitted that central OBC list is already being used for admissions in Under Graduate course since NEET-UG 2020 itself and, therefore, there is no reason the same should not be followed for the PG admissions.

While responding to the contention that the rules of the game had been changed after the commencement of the game, MCC submitted that once the petitioners themselves are placing reliance on the GGSIPU General Admissions Brochure published on 10.06.2021, clause 6.1.4 whereof clearly mentions that the OBC reservation policy was not applicable in Master's and Post Graduate Diploma courses, they cannot now claim that they should be granted any reservation on the basis of the Delhi OBC list.

He also pointed out that the information bulletin issued by respondent no.1 on 03.10.2021 in itself made it clear that both VMMC and ABVIMS are central institutes and, therefore, the OBC seats in the said institute will be filled as per the central government list.

So, merely because there was an inadvertent error on the part of the respondent no.1 qua answer to Q. No.50 in the FAQs, which has now been corrected cannot entitle the petitioners to now urge that they were under an impression that the OBC candidates in the Delhi OBC list will also be entitled to reservation in these central institutes, contended MCC.

Taking note of all the submissions made by all the parties, the HC bench opined that VMMC & SJH, ABVIMS & RML, ESIC, Basaidarapur continue to be affiliated to respondent no. 2, a state university, and in that note that petitioners had rightly contended that those institutes cannot be said to be Central Educational Institutions under the CEI Act, 2006.

"The issue, however, is whether merely because VMMC & SJH, ABVIMS & RML, ESIC, Basaidarapur do not qualify as CEI under the CEI Act, which makes it mandatory for the Central Government to provide 27% reservation for OBC candidates, can it denude the Central Government of its power to decide OBC list to use, the Central or the State list?" the court noted at this outset.

After examining the objective of the CEI Act, the bench observed, "it is evident that the CEI Act merely provides for a mandatory reservation in the central educational institutes and does not in any manner envisage interference with the constitutional power of the Central Government to make reservations for admissions to any institute. The answer therefore, to the question hereinabove has to be a clear 'NO'. Merely because institutes such as VMMC and ABVIMS do not fall under the ambit of the term 'central educational institutions' as defined in 2 (d) cannot imply that the central government does not have the power to provide for reservations in these institutes. Similarly, it cannot be said that the central government does not have the power to prescribe that only the central OBC list would be applicable in these institutes."

Further referring to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Neil Aurelio Nunes and others, the bench observed, "In the present case, both the institutions in question, have all along been described as Central Institutes both by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2, this was made clear as early as on 10.06.2021 when the respondent no. 2 issued its Information Bulletin, and was reiterated in the Information Brochure issued by respondent no.1 on 03.10.2021. It is also undisputed that these institutes are funded and maintained by the Central Government."

"In my view, this position that in all Central Institutions, admissions against seats reserved for the OBC was meant to be only for those in the Central OBC list was, therefore, crystal clear to everyone right from the beginning. Moreover, all the candidates were also well aware that in all central institutes including the VMMC & SJH, ABVIMS & RML, ESIC, BASAIDARAPUR, it was only the central OBC list which was being followed for Under Graduate courses from NEET-PG 2020 itself," it added.

Although the court held the petitioners justified in urging that they were misled by the answer to FAQ no. 50, the bench held, "the fact remains that all other clauses, of both the brochure of respondent no. 1, and the Information Bulletin of respondent no. 2 clearly indicated that in these two institutes, described as Central Institutes, it was the Central OBC List which would be applicable, both for the AIQ and Institutional seats."

The bench further opined, "upon a holistic reading of the Bulletin issued by respondent no.1 and the Brochure issued by respondent no.2, it is apparent that the respondents' intention to rely only on the Central OBC list for reservation even for institutional preference seats, was made abundantly clear from day one itself. It can therefore, not be said that there was any change in the 'rules of the game' after it had begun. At best, it was a case where a clarification was issued belatedly, yet the same was also issued before the counselling was to begin on 13.01.2022. This, when viewed together with the fact that all the candidates including the petitioners, were given an option to change to the Un-Reserved Category, which option they admittedly exercised, leads to only one conclusion, that neither were the petitioners taken by surprise nor has any prejudice been caused to them on account of the impugned notification."

Rejecting the petition, the bench clarified, "Moreover, the petitioners' alternative prayer that they be given an opportunity to apply in the Un-Reserved category has already been granted and about 1,200 similarly situated candidates have exercised this option; in fact, a number of petitioners' have been allotted seats in the Un-Reserved category and therefore, on this count also the petition is liable to be rejected."

To read the case order, click on the link below.