Srinagar: In a case typifying “gross official indolence” that cost a candidate admission to MBBS, the J&K High Court on Thursday directed the government to grant the aggrieved applicant admission in this year’s academic session of the medical course.
The aggrieved candidate, Basit Khursheed, had applied to NEET-UG-2024-25 (for MBBS) under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The certificate issued in his favour was valid only till 03.08.2024. He, according to his court petition, could not have applied for a renewal certificate before its expiry, and immediately, the next day after the expiry of the certificate, he applied for its renewal. Alas, the concerned Revenue department authorities renewed it only on 02.09.2024, when the date set by the BOPEE for furnishing the proof of documents at the time of counselling had already expired.
“It was solely because of the fault of the concerned official/officer that the certificate was not renewed within the prescribed period, otherwise, the petitioner would have submitted the same with the respondents before the cut-off date on 23.08.2024,” his counsel argued.
The selection list of the session 2024-25 reveals that 12 candidates having NEET score of 461 and 404 were selected under the EWS category, whereas the petitioner, who had a NEET score of 462, but because of non-availability of EWS certificate, he was not considered for selection under EWS category.
Adjudicating the matter, a division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held: “in order to do the substantial justice to ensure that the meritorious candidate belonging to the poor strata of the society is not deprived of an opportunity to get an admission in the MBBS course just because of the indolence/inaction of the competent authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005, to issue the EWS certificate within the stipulated time, this court deems it proper to direct the respondent 2 (BOPEE) to grant the admission to the petitioner in the next academic session of MBBS course.”
Respondent No. 2 shall take appropriate measures to enhance the total seats by one seat, so as to accommodate the petitioner in the next academic session.
The court held it iniquitous to cancel the selection of the respondent No.14 (a private candidate falling immediately after the merit to the petitioner Basit Khursheed) and also it is not possible for this Court to direct respondent No. 2 to grant admission to the petitioner in the academic session 2024-25.
It mould the relief by directing respondent No. 2 to grant admission to the petitioner in the next academic session.
The court held: “in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the concerned court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.”
It directed “under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of Rules and Regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time Schedule prescribed – 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond 30th October.”
It made it clear that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases.
“In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled,” it said.
The bench said “in case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the Rules and Regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.”
It said, “Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy, but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case, the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who, for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.”
