NEET 2021: High Court directs Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College to redraw MBBS merit list
Shimla: Observing that the Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College (MMMC) had admitted three students while violating the NEET UG 2021 merit list, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed the college to redraw the merit list of the admission to the MBBS course in respect of mop up round counselling.
Such a decision has been taken by the court after a dental student approached the court and claimed that she had been denied admission while three management quota students had been upgraded for the State quota seats even though they scored lesser marks than the petitioner in the medical entrance examination.
Therefore, directing the college to admit the petitioner, the HC bench comprising of Justices Sabina and Satyen Vaidya noted, "Admission of respondents 6 to 8 in state quota general category seats in MMMC on their upgradation from management quota by ignoring the merit of other applicants including the petitioner in mop-up round is held to be bad in law being against the express conditions of prospectus. Consequently, respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to redraw the merit list of admission to MBBS course in MMMC in respect of the mop up round counselling held on 25.03.2022 against general category seats of State quota and after such redrawal of merit list, admit the petitioner to MBBS course in MMMC, Kumarhatti, District Solan, H.P., commencing academic year 2021-2022 forthwith, in case she finds place in merit so redrawn."
The concerned medical aspirant had appeared in NEET UG 2021 in order to secure admission in the MBBS course. She secured all India rank 1,26,537 and got admitted to the BDS course in Bhojia Dental College, Nalagarh under the State Quota during the first round of counselling. Consequently, she joined the H.P Dental College during the second round of counselling on March 10.
Meanwhile, on March 25, Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College (MMMC), Solan held Mop up round for admission to the vacant seats under different categories. At that time, three State Quota seats in MBBS course were available for general category candidates.
Therefore, the petitioner student had applied to MMMC for State quota seat under general category on the basis of her merit in NEET UG. However, instead of admitting the petitioner in the general category State quota seats, the college admitted thee other students by upgrading them from the management quota of the same college. Such a decision was taken by the college even though those three students had lower merit when compared with the petitioner student.
Raising this issue, the petitioner approached the MMMC Principal, Maharishi Markandeshwar University and Atal Medical & Research University. Although Atal Medical University had directed MMMC to rectify the mistake, nothing had been done in this regard by the college. Following this, the petitioner had approached the High Court bench and filed the plea on March 29.
The petitioner contended that the action of the college and university was illegal and arbitrary as it violated the provisions of Common/Centralized Counselling Prospectus for admission to MBBS & BDS Courses based on merit of NEET-UG-2021, issued by Atal Medical & Research University on the behalf of the Himachal Pradesh Government.
It was contended that the State quota seats in the general category available with the MMMC had to be filled on the basis of the merit obtained in NEET UG 2021, in the first instance and other options mentioned in the prospectus could have been availed thereafter.
At this outset, the petitioner referred to Clause-3 of the prospectus which stated, "However, shifting for upgradation of course and quota from private Dental Colleges to Govt. Dental College and Govt./private dental colleges to MMMC Solan and Government dental college/MMMC Solan to Govt. Medical Colleges in order of merit-cum-choices/preferences of the course, college and quota shall be allowed."
On the other hand, the college and the University justified their stand by referring to Clause-4 of the Prospectus that mentioned, "4. The Himachali bonafide candidates admitted under management quota in the private Medical/Dental colleges will also be converted automatically from management quota to state quota in the colleges concerned against vacant/drop-out seats, if any, in order of merit, as the case, may be, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as prescribed for State Quota seats."
It was contended by them that the students who had been upgraded were bonafide Himachali students and they had been admitted to management quota seats of MMMC in the first instance. Therefore, the provisions of Clause-4 of the prospectus provided them with the right to be upgraded to State quota seats and by this logic, no illegality or arbitrariness can be alleged against the college and the university, they argued.
However, the Atal Medical University supported the case of the petitioner and submitted to the court that it had provided the MMMC Principal with a list of eligible students for the State quota seats, who had been admitted under the management quota in the first two rounds of counselling in the MMMC with an advice that those students were to be upgraded to H.P. quota seats rank wise if no student with more marks in NEET applied in mop up round.
The university further informed the court that after receiving the representation of the petitioner, it had directed the MMMC Principal to review the allocation of the State quota seats in the general category while complying with the directions issued earlier.
After taking note of the submissions made by all the parties, the bench also took note of the Clause-3 and Clause-4 of the prospectus and noted that the main question was, "...what has to be the sequence of priority. Whether clause-4 will have preference over clause-3 or vice versa?
The bench noted that the seats in the medical colleges are extremely coveted and therefore every endeavour needs to be made for filling up these seats solely on the basis of merit. At this outset, the bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Priya Gupta vs. State of Chattisgarh and ors., and Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Referring to these orders, the bench clarified the importance of merit and noted, "From the above noted exposition of law, there is no doubt that merit has to prevail. The fact of matter is that to secure meritorious candidates is one of the main objectives of centralized competitive examination at all India level like NEET. Further the adoption of process of common/centralized counselling is another step to avoid sacrifice of meritorious candidates at the altar of arbitrariness, favoritism, nepotism and alike vices."
The bench also observed that Clause-4 could not be preferred over Clause-3 and at this outset, the bench noted, "Having reference to Clauses 3 & 4 of the prospectus in the context of the objective of merit, it cannot be said that Clause-4 will have preference over Clause-3. On the contrary, it is vice versa for the reasons, firstly that the arrangement of the seriatim of clauses is indicative of the preference commanded by Clause-3 having merit of the candidates as criteria and secondly, clause-3 deals with a situation where admissions are available as a result of mop up round which is continuation of admission process, whereas, the benefit of clause-4 is available only in respect of vacant/drop out seats and that means when the entire process of counselling including the mop up round is finished, Clause-4 will became applicable in respect of only vacant/drop out seats."
Therefore, dismissing the preferential right of students secured under Clause-4, the bench observed, "Thus, the contention of respondents No.1 and 2 regarding preferential right of students under clause4 of the prospectus needs to be rejected outrightly. Additionally, respondent No.3 under whose aegis the admission process has under taken is also categoric about preference of admission under clause-3 to that under clause-4 of the prospectus. Its correspondence dated 24.03.2022 is unambiguous. MMMC was requested to consider students admitted under management quota for upgradation to the State quota, if no student with more marks in NEET applied in mop up round. Respondents No.1 and 2 have clearly ignored the advice rendered to it by respondent No.3, which raises a question mark on their bona fide."
Finally referring to the contention of the college that MBBS admissions are prohibited after the date fixed for closure of admissions, the bench noted, "We have given our considered thought to contention so raised and we are unable to subscribe to the argument raised by the aforesaid respondents. The above analysis drawn by us prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioner has been denied admission to MBBS course by such actions of respondents No.1 and 2 which are clearly arbitrary. The Rules of admission as prescribed by prospectus issued by respondent No.3 have been violated with impunity. Had the wrong not been done by respondents No.1 and 2, petitioner would have got admission in MBBS course in MMMC by virtue of her merit and as a matter of right."
"This Court will fail in its constitutional obligation, if it finds itself unable to help a victim salvage her right merely because the last date for admission has crossed," it further noted.
"In the peculiar circumstances of instant case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be non-suited only because some time has been taken in final adjudication of grievance raised by the petitioner. Once this Court has found the violation of rights of petitioner, it needs to be remedied by grant of suitable relief, failing which it will be the travesty and failure of justice," read the judgment while addressing this issue.
"No instance has been brought to our notice which lays absolute dictum that the admission to MBBS courses cannot be allowed after due date even after writ Court finds blatant abuse of process of law by the authorities," it added.
While considering the case of the petitioner, the bench also noted that she is pursuing first-year BDS course. Noting that the BDS and MBBS syllabus overlap to some extent, the bench noted, "therefore, petitioner will not be facing much difficulty in coping up with the already covered syllabus," and it also clarified that the "petitioner cannot be denied the relief merely on the ground that the last date for admission process has already elapsed."
To read the order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/himachal-pradesh-hc-182652.pdf
Also Read: HC stays Regulatory Commission's order of Rs 45 lakh penalty on Varsity, Medical College
