NEET Counselling: Delhi HC junks Plea Against MCC Decision withdrawing conversion of SC Children, Women Seats to General Category

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court refused to grant relief to a National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) candidate as it upheld the Medical Counselling Committee's decision to withdraw conversion of SC-children/women's seats to the general category before counselling.

Refusing to grant relief to the NEET-UG Candidate, who was denied MBBS admission to the Delhi University due to the MCC's decision, the Delhi HC bench said that the correction of a legal error on reservation, in compliance with the Constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be treated as procedural violation or administrative mistake on the part the authorities.

The Court found no illegality in the decision of the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and Delhi University to correct the conversion algorithm that had initially proposed converting SC-Boys/Women (SC-CW) seats into Unreserved-Boys/Women (UR-CW) seats.

"Correcting an inadvertent legal error before the counselling process cannot be treated as a procedural violation or administrative mistake. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances warranting interference. This case exemplifies the balanced approach of the courts towards disputes relating to reservation, giving primacy to procedural integrity and constitutional principles," said the HC bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma.

Also Read: NTA NEET exam reforms - Centre to implement expert panel's recommendations

As per the latest media report by Live Law, the plea before the HC bench was filed by the NEET UG 2024 candidates, who are eligible for educational concession for admission to Delhi University under the Armed Forces Quota. Even though initially the information bulletin and counselling scheme for NEET 2024 specified that the SC(CW) seats would be converted to UR(CW) seats during the third round of counselling, before the third round of counselling, the algorithm was changed and the vacant ST(CW) and SC(CW) seats reverted to the ST and SC categories respectively, instead of being converted to UR(CW).

In this regard, the concerned officials said that this change was made in line with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court rulings. However, it was argued by the petitioners that despite being eligible for MBBS seats in DU/GGS IP universities under the CW category, they were not allotted seats even after the results of the third counselling round. They argued that the concerned authorities committed a serious error by failing to implement the information bulletin.

Meanwhile, it was argued by MCC that the change was announced even before the third round of counselling had commenced and as per the Information Bulletin, the conversion of seats was supposed to be done during the third round only when the seats of candidates belonging to the said conversion category were exhausted.

MCC further submitted that no UR (CW) seats were left vacant in the third round and therefore, the petitioners could not be accommodated under the CW quota.

After legal scrutiny, the National Medical Commission (NMC) also argued that the initial conversion mechanism was found to be inconsistent with the constitutional reservation principles, and therefore, it was necessary to be amended.

While considering the matter, the Delhi High Court bench observed that when horizontal reservation category seats remained unfilled after two round of counselling, it was required for the seats to be redistributed as per the Constitution and the Supreme Court's directions to ensure that no allotted seats for marginalised communities were wasted. The HC bench also observed that the CW reserved seats in ST-CW, SC-CW, OBC-CW and UR-CW categories revert to the main ST, SC, OBC, and main UR categories, respectively.

Relying on the judicial precedents, the Court opined that to grant relief in reservation cases, there must be no fault on the part of the candidate, legal remedies have to be pursued promptly, there must be clear mistake with clear violation of rules by the authorities, and there must be proven better qualification than the recruited candidates.

In this case, the High Court bench opined that the petitioners had failed to meet the standards as it noted that the conversion algorithm for the CW category had been corrected before the third round of counselling. It also said that no actual fault could be attributed to the authorities as the initial legal inconsistency in the conversion algorithm had been proactively corrected.

The Court noted that "inadvertent legal error" by the authorities could not be treated as a procedural violation and said that it could not issue a direction requiring the authorities to continue with an action, which was legally erroneous.

"Therefore, the legal infirmity in the CW conversion algorithm, which was inconsistent with the Constitution of India and the judgments of the Supreme Court, was rightly rectified in accordance with Article 16(4), Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1/MCC and Respondent No. 6/University of Delhi rectified this inadvertent legal error to align the algorithm with the constitutional reservation principles. This rectification cannot be considered as a subsequent change in the rules of the game, as it was a mere correction made before the third round of counselling to ensure compliance with the law," observed the bench.

During the case proceedings, the petitioners had relied on Yashika Malik v. Delhi University Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors. (2024), where a Division bench of the High Court had directed the Delhi University to create an additional seat for an eligible candidate belonging to the CW category, who was denied admission in the first round of counselling due to the lack of vacant seats in the CW reserved category.

However, noting that the petitioner in the Yashika Mallik case was initially prevented from participating in the counselling due to wrongful cancellation of her Education Concession Certificate (ECC), the Court distinguished the present case, stating that the present petitioners were in a different position.

"The present petitioners, however, are in a fundamentally different position. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any administrative lapse or procedural irregularity which prevented them from participating in the counselling. The petitioners have not been prevented on account of documentation issues. Therefore, the decision in Yashika Malik (supra) does not bear any substantial resemblance to the present circumstances. Courts have consistently emphasised that administrative remedies are exceptionable and cannot be universally applied without demonstrating specific procedural lapses or administrative errors," observed the Court.

Apart from this, the bench also observed that under the Information Bulletin, MCC had the discretion to make necessary changes to any provision in the bulletin and therefore, the Bulletin recognised the authority of the authorities to change the guidelines.

"Additionally, if there is any ambiguity or confusion regarding the eligibility criteria, counselling process or candidate registration, the interpretation given by the MCC and DGHS will be final and binding. This clause ensures that the authorities retain the flexibility to clarify or modify the rules when necessary, allowing the counselling process to function smoothly and in accordance with established policies," further observed the Court, as it dismissed the petition.

Also Read: Demand for NEET Twice a Year! Delhi HC junks plea