Seat Blocking: Doctors move SC seeking permission to appear in NEET PG Mop-up Round
New Delhi: Alleging seat blocking in the NEET PG 2021 Counselling, a group of doctors have recently approached the Supreme Court seeking permission for participating in the mop-up round of counselling with a free exit option.
Taking note of the request for urgent listing by the counsel for the petitioner doctors, Advocate Charu Mathur, the top court bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli has directed the matter to be listed.
Apart from the nod for appearing in the mop-up counselling, the doctors have also sought directions upon the Medical Counselling Committee for providing details of the seats that were blocked but remained vacant in Round-2, adds Live law.
Besides, the doctors in their plea have also challenged the clause (i) of the modified scheme, because it allowed the candidates to block the seats and appear in the mop-up round of the counselling by forfeiting the security deposit.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the MCC, operative under DGHS had put mop-up round on hold in compliance with the Supreme Court orders.
Also Read: MP NEET PG Counselling Mop-Up Round Postponed, Revised Schedule released
As per the latest media report by Live Law, in the recent petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates who had not joined the allotted seat in Round 2 were given an option to participate in the Mop-Up round of counselling subject to forfeiture of security deposit. This resulted in seat blocking by many of the candidates in the Round 2. Such candidates did not join the seats for participating in the Mop-up Round.
Pointing out that there was no penalty for such registering and non-joining of courses, the doctors referred to the fact that a hefty penalty was imposed only when a candidate after reporting to a college, decided to leave. Therefore, in the absence of any strict norm, the whole scenario led to blocking of seats. They also pointed out that those candidates who appeared in the First and Second Round were not allowed to appear in the Mop-up round of counselling. So, the blocked seats in the Second Round which now are included in the Mop-up round will not be available for such candidates.
Referring to the seat matrix for the Mop-Up round, the doctors submitted that several prestigious branches were available in the Mop-up and candidates with much lower rank were availing such seats which the petitioner doctors could have easily joined.
Even though they were eligible for those seats, they could not join them as they were blocked and were not included in the Round 2 of the counselling, the plea pointed out.
They also referred to the Supreme Court's directions and mentioned that the fresh round of counselling which will be conducted after the top court's order will be limited to those candidates only who had not joined seats in the first two rounds.
Therefore, in the view of the seat blocking in Round 2, the petitioners sought to be allowed to participate in the Mop-up round. They urged before the top court that if not allowed, they will be unjustly deprived of the seats for which they were originally eligible.
