Filing discrepancy: Rajasthan High Court orders admission based on merit of candidate

Single Judge Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court observed that the merit of a candidate is a cardinal factor in determining eligibility for admission. The court held that the failure of a candidate to produce documents due to reasons beyond the control of the candidate must be looked into by the authorities and the factors and circumstances leading to the failure to produce must be considered, but merit still comes first. in terms of determining suitability.

Background

The plaintiffs having the requisite eligibility appeared for the NEET-UG examination 2024 conducted by the defendants. After the general counseling on October 23, 2024, the respondents informed the candidates that a round of allotment of vacancies for MBBS and BDS courses was being conducted. The applicants were summoned for the document verification stage, which took place on 10/28/2024.

The applicants submitted their Class X and XII mark sheets, domicile certificate, transfer certificate, caste certificate, etc. in the homeless vacancy search round. They were asked to submit affidavits as the Biology subject was not mentioned in their Class XI mark sheets. The plaintiffs attributed this to promotion from Class XI to Class XII amid the COVID-19 pandemic. They also said that the central and state governments have ordered to extend this rule to all students this academic year.

The petitioner submitted the affidavit on 28 October 2024 (Annexure-10) along with the deposit for allotment of MBBS/BDS.

According to the Revised Provisional Consolidated Merit List, the plaintiff’s name had a serial number. 3647 and later in the preliminary consolidated allotment list for the college, her name was removed from the list. The plaintiff sent letters to the defendants on 10/30/2024 and 10/31/2024, but no response was received.

Outraged, the applicant, along with other people with similar complaints, went to court.

Disagreements between the parties:

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that although the plaintiff was a worthy candidate, preference was given to Defendants 5 and 6, excluding the plaintiff from the list. Calling it a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, counsel referred to the Ordinance in Yashpreet Dhruv Vs. Chairman of the National Medical Council and Ors.

It was alleged that the plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to submit the certificate in the expected/prescribed format.

Based on Asha is against it. Fri. B.D. University of Health and Sciences CharmsCounsel submitted that since the petitioner was meritorious, this should have been the exclusive criterion for allotment of seats.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners were informed in advance that to qualify for the casual vacancy round, the Class XI mark sheet along with the relevant subjects had to be submitted.

Referring to the additional affidavit filed by the Chairman of the Advisory Council that only 878 out of 920 candidates cleared the document verification stage, counsel submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to allotment of seats at this time of the Random Vacancies Round. Moreover, 19 candidates did not even submit promotion certificates in which Biology was one of the subjects in 11^th Grade.

The lawyer relied on decisions taken in Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital and Research Center Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Orsa, Premsukh Vs. Union of India and Orsa., And S. Krishna Shradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Court findings:

First, the Court emphasized that candidates of good merit should be given a fair chance of admission.

The question before the Court was whether the certificate produced by the applicant on 31.10.2024 can be considered valid and whether it entitles the applicant, considering that he was given very little time to produce it. Moreover, the plaintiffs also had superior merit compared to the defendants, who were given preference over the plaintiffs.

The court held that the document verification/random vacancy round was conducted in a hurry amidst the holidays due to Deepavali. It was obvious that candidates would not be able to obtain the required certificates from their schools during the holidays.

The Court held that the Class X and Class XII transcripts were relevant and binding documents and the plaintiffs had submitted the same in a timely manner.

The court held that the plaintiffs were struck off the list simply because they failed to provide the required scorecard, i.e. mark sheet for Class XI with Biology as one of the subjects while Respondent no. 5 and 6, being less deserving than the petitioners, were given colleges of their own accord.

The court noted that the plaintiffs could not control the provision of certificates obtained from rural areas and for other reasons mentioned. He held that the plaintiffs approached the Court without delaying the matter. Moreover, it was found that the Respondents had failed to justify the mandatory provision of submission of mark sheet for Class XI in which Biology was one of the subjects. Although the same was reflected in the Class XII mark sheet.

The court also found that it was persuaded by the argument that the defendants did not give the plaintiffs sufficient time to file the documents required by the mandatory provisions.

Based further on Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, The Court reiterated that in determining the eligibility of candidates, only merit should be the criterion for admission to MBBS courses and the rule of merit should not be violated at any cost.

The court said that while considering a candidate, merit, impartiality and transparency in the selection process form the ethos of the selection/admission process.

The panel of judges mentioned Dolly Chanda vs JEE Chairman, repeating this Every violation of a rule regarding the presentation of evidence need not result in the rejection of a candidacy.

Further reliance on Asha Vs. Fri. B.D. University of Health and Sciences Charms. and Premsukh Sun. Union of India and the States, the Court noted,

“The merit obtained by the petitioners should be the exclusive criterion for allotment of seats/colleges and in no way on account of technicalities should the fundamental rights of the meritorious petitioners be interfered with and the pending petitions fall within the ambit of the rarest of rare cases where the intervention of the court is justified.”

Having made these observations, the Court directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicants strictly on the basis of merit and to rank the medical colleges considering the same. Moreover, the nominations of Defendants 5 and 6 were rejected, considering them to be of inferior merit compared to the Plaintiffs.

Case Name: Kanchan Kumawat v. Union of India

Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Vivek Joshi Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Vikash Ghosalya with Mr. Prithvi Pal Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG, with Mr. Yash Joshi, Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC, Mr. M.S. Rghav, for NTA, with Mr. Vishwas Saini, Mr. Sanjay Khadar, for respondent No. 5, Mr. Angad Mirdha, for NMC, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava for Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, for respondent No. 6

Click here to download the ruling/decree