Take it as revenge and show Medicine is safe in your hands: HC while dismissing MBBS aspirant's plea

Taking note of the fact that there was delay on the part of the student in approaching the court, the bench comprising of Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan dismissed the plea and noted, "This writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed."

"According to me this writ petition is to be dismissed with heavy cost because the petitioner is wasting the time of this court by filing writ petition after writ petition with various prayers and that also at belated stages. But I am reluctant to impose cost in this case treating it as an innocent attempt of an innocent girl to get admission for her dream course of MBBS," noted the court encouraging the student to qualify the exam in the next attempt if possible.

The petitioner student, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, had submitted an application for getting admission as per prospectus KEAM for the academic year 2018-2019. In the first phase of allotment she secured a seat in Dental College of Kannur.

Also Read: NEET PG Counselling: MBBS Doctors move Kerala HC against 27 percent SEBC Reservation

Although she had approached the High Court before the second phase of allotment, her plea was disposed by the court while recording prospectus provides for 8% reservation on a State wide basis and the reservation is being strictly adhered to on the State wide basis. The Government Pleader had also submitted that on the strength of the petitioner's rank, she will be allotted a seat if her rank falls within the 8% reserved seats.

The court had, back then, directed the Government to take up and consider the representation and based on the direction of the court, the Government via order dated 17.11.2018 had rejected the request of the petitioner observing that the allotment of seat was strictly according to clause 4.1.5 of the approved prospectus.

As per the petitioner, communal reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for short SCST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are vertical reservation under Article 15(4) of the constitution of India, while the reservation in favour of Government of India Nominees (for short Nominees), Persons With Disability (for short PWD) and Special Reservations (for short SR) are Horizontal Reservations under Article 15(1). Horizontal Reservations cut across the Vertical Reservations and the same is called Interlocking reservations.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indra Sawhny and others v. Union of India and others, Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors v. State of UP and Ors, Saurav Yadav & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, the counsel for the petitioner argued that even after providing the Horizontal Reservations the percentage of backward class of citizens remain and should remain the same is the settled law.

She argued that the reservation of seats available to SCST students was not properly computed by the respondents in that academic year and hence the petitioner was denied a seat.

It was the prayer of petitioner student that even though the admission of 2018 -19 are over, taking this as a rarest of rare case as held by the apex court, she may be allotted a seat in this academic year. The counsel also submitted that the denial of seats to the petitioner was because of the wrong reservation policy adopted by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled compensation in the light of the several judgments of the apex court which she relied.

On the other hand, the Government pleader claimed that based on the statement filed by The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the petitioner student was not entitled to any reliefs.

While considering the merits of the case, the HC bench noted that earlier the petitioner had amended her petition twice and finally in 2021 she requested to withdraw the same with the liberty to file a fresh petition, which the court was considering.

In the present petition, the student contended that the 10% reservation was not properly computed and thereby she was denied the MBBS seat for the academic year 2018-2019.

Looking at the timeline concerning the case, the petitioner student noted, "If we go through the dates and events in this case, it is clear that the contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner are highly belated, is justified."

Further taking note of the last date of MBBS admission in Kerala in 2018, the HC noted, "According to me, the present writ petition is to be dismissed for the delay aspects itself. The petitioner has not approached this Court in time and this Court is not in a position to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner at this distance of time."

Referring to the Apex Court judgments on which the counsel for the petitioner relied upon, the court noted, "In all those cases, the Apex Court and this Court passed orders because of the fault of the institutions/authorities in giving admission to candidates. In this case, Ext.P2 order was passed on 17.11.2018 and the same was challenged after about 6 months. Therefore, according to me, the petitioner is not entitled any reliefs in this case for the simple reason that the petitioner has not approached this Court in time."

The High Court bench also referred to the previous judgment passed by the High Court regarding this matter and noted that the court had rejected the petition. Referring to the extracts of that judgment, the court noted,

"I think, in the light of the above finding, the point raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner approached this Court after a long time and this Court cannot give any direction to the petitioner, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted because the petitioner was an applicant for getting admission to the Medical course for the academic year 2018-19 and we are now in the year 2021. No relief can be given to the petitioner at this distance of time."

Mentioning that the petitioner had amended the petition twice and had withdrawn the same, the court observed, "According to me this writ petition is to be dismissed with heavy cost because the petitioner is wasting the time of this court by filing writ petition after writ petition with various prayers and that also at belated stages. But I am reluctant to impose cost in this case treating it as an innocent attempt of an innocent girl to get admission for her dream course of MBBS."

"Petitioner ought to have spent time to study well in the ensuing academic year and get admission to her dream course instead of spending time for this legal battle. This is not the end of her educational carrier," the court further noted.

"I wish her all the best to get admission to her dream course by attempting in the qualifying examination in the next time if it is possible. Take it as a revenge and show the society that the medical science is safe in your hand. That will be the happiest day to the author of this judgement just like to you and to your loving parents," added the bench.