In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a crucial decision was made regarding the admission of Priority-III candidates in post-graduate medical courses. The court addressed the concerns raised by applicants seeking admission and provided a resolution to the issue. This judgement marks a significant step towards ensuring fairness in the admission process for medical aspirants. 🏥⚖️
Facts
- Total number of seats for Priority-III candidates in counselling was 144.
- The judgement dated 11 September, 2023 rejected the appellants’ claim for counselling/admission in post-graduate medical courses at AFMS institutions.
- 33 candidates in Priority-III were found to be ineligible, reducing the available seats for the appellants in the same category.
- The appellants relied on Clauses 16(c) and 20(f)(xiv) of the Information Bulletin.
- The NEET-PG exam is conducted by the National Board for Medical Examination for MD/MS post-graduate courses.
- The appellants obtained permissions to avail priority in AFMS institutions.
- The appellants seek directions for a fresh merit list based on ‘All India Rank’ and a fresh round of examination in May 2024.
- Having an official seal on the sponsorship certificate was not mandatory.
Arguments
- The requirement of official seal on the sponsorship certificate was deemed mandatory by the respondents.
- The absence of the official seal on the sponsorship certificate should have been allowed to be rectified by the appellants.
- Denying a meritorious candidate a seat based on a technicality like the absence of an official seal is unjust.
- Previous years’ practice allowed candidates to participate in counseling without the office seal on the sponsorship certificate.
- The respondents did not initially raise any objection to the alleged defect in the sponsorship certificates submitted by the appellants.
- The appellants should be granted admission as per their NEET PG 2023 rank in the next academic year due to the delay caused by the current situation.
- Out of 75 applications received under Priority-III category, 42 were found eligible while 33, including the appellants’ applications, were deemed ineligible.
- Counsel representing the respondents stated that a total of 75 applications were received in this category.
Analysis
- The fixing of the official seal on the sponsorship certificate was considered a formality as the certificate was signed and stamped by the competent authority.
- There can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof based on the specific case and rigid principles should not be applied.
- The requirement of the official seal on the sponsorship certificate was not explicitly mentioned as mandatory in the Information Bulletin for admission.
- The rejection of the appellants’ candidature due to the absence of an official seal was deemed arbitrary and unjust by the Court.
- The authorities should have provided an opportunity for candidates to rectify any alleged deficiencies in their documents before rejecting their candidature.
- The requirement of the official seal had not been strictly enforced in previous years, indicating inconsistency in its application.
- The decision to reject the appellants’ claim based on the absence of an official seal was considered irrational and arbitrary by the Court.
- Meritorious candidates/students who are denied admission in MBBS courses illegally or irrationally by authorities should be given relief through court interventions.
- In cases of unjust and arbitrary denial of admission, candidates should be granted admission in the next academic year.
- Essential eligibility criteria for admission should not be diluted, but a distinction should be made between possessing the qualifications by the cut-off date and the proof required to establish this fact.
- Candidates who were otherwise qualified but denied admission should be given admission in the current academic year in State medical colleges.
- Efforts should be made to dispose of proceedings related to admission in medical courses at the earliest if approached by the candidate/student without delay.
- Candidates must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for admission unless there is an express provision to the contrary.
- The court can direct admission to be granted in the next academic year if no immediate relief can be provided in the same year due to arbitrary actions by authorities. This may involve increasing the number of seats or adjusting seats in the management quota.
- Compensation can be awarded to meritorious candidates who lose an academic year due to no fault of their own and are not granted admission in the same year.
- Inability to produce necessary certificates by the cut-off date should not be the sole reason for denying admission as authorities have the responsibility to verify eligibility qualifications.
- The authorities were at fault in denying admissions to the appellants by adopting a hyper-technical approach.
- On merits, the appellants ought to have been granted admission.
- The appellants would have secured admission in the M.D. Medicine course at R&R, Delhi, based on their NEET PG 2023 exam rank.
- The appellants approached the Court promptly and without unnecessary delay.
Decision
- Appellants 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be granted admission in the academic year 2024-2025
- Seat matrix filed by respondents confirms appellants’ assertion
- Bench directed respondents to present note on stream and institution availability for appellants
- Impugned judgment set aside, present appeal allowed
Case Title: DR CHAYAN JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2024:DHC:4565-DB)
Case Number: LPA-661/2023
