Reservation benefits to Meritorious candidates in NEET PG admissions: Centre files affidavit, SC lists matter for next week

New Delhi: Responding to the plea seeking proper implementation of reservation policy for NEET PG candidates, especially in respect of the meritorious candidates, the Central Government has now submitted an affidavit in the matter.

While the Union Government has provided the details of the candidates who were allotted the Unreserved seats, the counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan claimed that the authorities have violated the Apex court order while filling up the seats.

"What they have done, in their counter affidavit - instead of filling up as directed, first fill up all open category seats irrespective of whether the candidate belongs to reserved and then open rest," Advocate Bhushan was quoted saying by Live Law.

Taking note of the submissions, the top court bench comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has directed the petitioners to file a rejoinder and has listed the matter for further hearing in next week.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that while considering the plea seeking proper implementation of reservation policy for NEET PG candidates, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Centre seeking its response.

The top court bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala had asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, to file an affidavit about the exact procedure being followed in the examination.

Also Read: Are meritorious candidates being treated as reserved category candidates in NEET PG Counselling? Supreme Court issues notice to Centre

The petition alleged that reserved category meritorious candidates, who have qualified for general seats in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET PG 2022) examination, were being allotted AIQ (All India Quota) seats under quota meant for the weaker sections.

The plea, filed by Pankaj Kumar Mandal and two others, said: "It is a settled principle of law that reserved category candidates who meet the eligibility criteria as laid down for unreserved seats are entitled to get admissions against the 50 per cent general category seats. Thus, if a candidate is entitled to be admitted on the basis of his own merit, then such admission should not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other reserved category since that will be against the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 16(4)," quotes IANS.

It further added that those members who belong to reserved category but get selected in the open competition on the basis of their own merit have a right to be included in the general/unreserved category. "Such MRC are not to be included in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes, etc," it said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners cited the example of the OBC candidate who secured 73rd rank, securing his place in general category but he was kept in the reserved category, affecting the prospect of another candidate from the reserved category.

Advocate Bhushan submitted that the result of the first round of NEET-PG counselling was released on September 28, however, seats belonging to meritorious reserved candidates (MRC), i.e. reserved category candidates, who on the basis of merit, were entitled to get admissions against the 50 per cent seats of the general category but were allotted reserved category seats in violation of the judgments of the apex court.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had contended that the reservation policy on roster basis was being followed in the counselling process. However, the top court bench had asked Bhati to file a response within a week.

Accordingly, the Union Government filed its response in an affidavit. Reading from the ASG Aishwarya Bhati was quoted saying by the recent Tweets by Live Law, "The first UR seat went to Rank 18, the second to Rank 22, which was an EWS Star candidate, third to Rank 44 who was an OBC Star candidate and fourth was Rank 69 who was OBC Star candidate. One OBC candidate chose to take this. In this manner this is there."

Claiming it to be a rolling roster, the ASG further stated, "What college, what course is very critical. So even if he's high in merit, he may be accommodated in another college."

However, responding to the affidavit, Advocate Bhushan claimed that the Government has violated the orders of the Supreme Court in the process of filling up the seats. He stated, "What they have done, in their counter affidavit - instead of filling up as directed, first fill up all open category seats irrespective of whether the candidate belongs to reserved and then open rest."

At this outset, the CJI opined that the petitioners should file a rejoinder and told the counsel for the petitioners, "Why don't you file a rejoinder Mr. Bhushan?"

"Those who qualified for unreserved seats, their seats should have been counted for unreserved seats. They're not doing this," Advocate Bhushan further claimed.

Responding to this, the CJI opined, "This may be for a reason. If he opts for an OBC seats, he may get a better institution."

"That should have been given in second round," the counsel for the petitioners responded in this regard.

"We cannot say that they're completely wrong. Formulate it and we'll see," ordered the top court bench.

"Number of reserved category candidates who should get in are also being reduced," added Advocate Bhushan who represented the petitioners.

The top court bench further referred to an affidavit filed by DGHS and noted that the counselling for the PG seats is almost complete since only the allotment in the stray round is incomplete.

"An affidavit in response has been filed by the deputy director general, health services. ASG states that the process of counselling for PG seats is almost complete since only the allotment in stray rounds remains. We give time to petitioners to file rejoinder. List thereafter," noted the CJI.

Although the petitioners' counsel requested the court to hear the matter this Friday, the Apex Court bench clarified that the board was already full. While Advocate Bhushan pointed out that for this year it would be just academic, the CJI responded by noting, "Formulate it, we'll lay down the law for future."

The matter has been listed for further hearing on next Monday.

Also Read: TN Health releases tentative vacancy position for NEET PG Admissions under NRI category