HC Denies Compensation to MBBS Aspirant Who Claimed Losing GMC Seat Due to Technical Glitches
Orissa High Court
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an MBBS aspirant, who sought a compensation for being denied an MBBS seat at a government medical college due to an alleged technical glitch on the web portal for counselling.
After appearing in the NEET UG 2022 exam, the petitioner secured All-India Rank of 16,663, Category rank of 7185 and All State Rank of 599. His grievance was that he was prevented from participating in the All-India Quota (AIQ) Mop-up and Stray Vacancy Rounds of counselling.
Thereafter, he filed a plea before the Orissa High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to grant him an MBBS seat at a Government Medical College, which he claims, would have certainly been granted to him had he not been prevented from participating in the AIQ Mop-Up Round and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
However, the Court held that the petitioner's relief for the grant of admission to UG MBBS/BDS course in a Government medical college based on UG NEET 2022 could not be entertained.
At this outset, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. A. Tripathy argued that the petitioner should be directed to be duly compensated for the lapses on the part of the authorities because of which, the petitioner missed a chance to get a Government College MBBS seat for medical studies.
It was the petitioner's case that the AIQ counselling was to be conducted in 4 online rounds, namely, AIQ Round 1, AIQ Round 2, AIQ Mop-up Round and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
The petitioner, who was unsuccessful in the first and second round of counselling, argued that in the AIQ Mop-Up Counselling round, a technical glitch had occasioned on the web portal hosted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), which prevented him from selecting and locking the desired choices of medical institutes. Consequently, out of total 377 available medical institutes choices, the petitioner could select and lock '0' choice and this is how the petitioner stood disabled from participating in the AIQ Mop-up Counselling Round as well as AIQ Stray Counselling Round.
He argued that candidates who scored lower ranks than himself secured Government College seats based on AIQ Mop-Up Counselling Round. Therefore, his right to be considered against the Government College MBBS seats stoof infringed. He also argued that because of non-registration by non-selection and locking of choices in the AIQ Mopup Counselling Round, the petitioner stood debarred from participating in the AIQ Stray Counselling Round also. In the AIQ Stray Counselling Round also, the students, who ranked way below the petitioner, were allocated Government college MBBS seats.
While considering the matter, the HC bench noted that the petitioner had been admitted to a UG course in a private Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner's case was that he was paying an exorbitant sum of Rs 6.5 lakh per year as tuition fee as against Rs 37,950 per year tuition fee payable in the State Government Medical Colleges.
At this outset, the petitioner relied on a Supreme Court's decision in the case of S-Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Soumya Sahu v. Union of India & Ors., and the Patna HC order in the case of Adhishree v. Union of India & Ors.
On the other hand, the MCC denied the petitioner's assertion that there was any glitch with the software. It was stated that on the said scheduled date more than 36,402 participating candidates had successfully filled and locked their choices. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Supreme Court order dated 31.03.2022 in the case of Anjana Chari v. the Medical Counselling Committee and others, where the Court had held that a candidate who has been allotted a seat in round 1 and 2 of the AIQ or the State Quota Counselling, is not eligible to participate in the AIQ Mop-up Round and subsequent Rounds.
"Apparently, there is a disputed question of fact as to whether it was because of the technical glitch that the petitioner could not participate in AIQ Mop-up Round of Counselling," noted the HC bench.
"We are not inclined to enter into such disputed question of fact in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for considering the petitioner’s claim for award of compensation," the bench mentioned in the order.
Accordingly, finding no merit in this application, the HC bench dismissed the plea.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/orissa-hc-order-269626.pdf
