Dr M Shushruth Vs State of Karnataka

3 . MEDICAL COUNSELING COMMITTEE (MCC) DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ROOM No.352, A-WING NIRMAN BHAVAN MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶29

4 . KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) 18^TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 012 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶30

5 . DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R5; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE FINAL ALLOTMENT OF MOP-UP ROUND OF COUNSELLING OF THE PG-NEET 2024 CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT No-4 KEA AS NULL AND VOID, ONLY WITH

¶34

¶35

3

¶36

RESPECT TO THE NRI/ MANAGEMENT (Q-CATEGORY) CATEGORY SEATS AND ETC.

¶37

IN W.P.No.2989/2025:

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

DR. SHEHAN HASHIM S/O DR. HASMI KEYI C.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. LIHANS, MLA ROAD KOTTOOLI, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 016

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶44

2 . KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶47

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE FINAL ALLOTMENT OF MOP-UP ROUND OF COUNSELLING OF THE PG-NEET 2024 CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY AS NULL AND VOID, ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE NRI/MANAGEMENT (Q-CATEGORY) CATEGORY SEATS AND ETC.

¶48

¶49

4

¶50

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶52

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶53

CAV JUDGMENT

¶54

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶55

These writ petitions are filed seeking substantially the

¶56

same reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.No.2989/2025 are as follows:-

¶57

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the final allotment of Mop-Up round of counseling of the PG-NEET 2024 conducted by the respondent No.2 Karnataka Examinations Authority as null and void, only with respect to the NRI/Management (Q-Category) category seats; and

¶58

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prepare a list of vacant/unallotted seats under the NRI Category and Management/Q-Category seats that have remained vacant before conduct of the mop-up round of counseling and thereafter to conduct afresh the mop-up round of counseling of the PG NEET-2024 by the Karnataka Examinations Authority; and thereafter to allot seats to the petitioner in terms of the inter-se merit under the NRI Category; and

¶59

¶60

5

¶61

(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.

¶62

The writ petitioners contend that they are the NRI

¶63

candidates aspiring for NEET PG Seat in pursuance to the KEA Notification for the year 2024-2025. It is contended that though NRI Category candidates were available for the selection, the KEA had de-categorized the unfilled, in-service and NRI Quota Seats in the second round of counseling itself which had denied a chance to NRI candidates to be selected against the NRI Quota Seats. It is contended that pursuant to the Notification dated 15.01.2025, calling for PG Medical candidates, who became eligible for admission due to the lowering of eligibility criteria, the applicants had participated in the allotment procedure. The brochure issued by the KEA specifically provided that NRI Quota Seats would be allotted to NRI candidates and the petitioners were also permitted to submit options in the NRI Quota. However, by decategorization which has been carried out by the KEA without any provision for the same, either in the brochure or

¶64

¶65

6

¶66

in the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 ('2006 Rules' for short), which have been made specifically applicable to the selection by the brochure in question. The petitioners have lost their opportunity for admission to NRI Quota Seats for which they are eligible. The representations have been submitted before the KEA in this regard which was not considered by the KEA.

¶67

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the petitioner being permitted to enter options in the NRI Quota to all available NRI Category Seats. The refusal to consider his options to those seats which are specifically notified as NRI seats in the mop-up round is illegal and unsustainable. It is further contended that the de-categorisation of the NRI Quota Seats as Management Seats have not been notified to the eligible candidates in the KEA web portal and that this vitiates the mop-up round of counselling. It is contended that in the absence of any provision in the 2006 Rules for converting of NRI Seats to

¶68

¶69

7

¶70

Management Seats or any such power reserved to the KEA in the brochure, the said procedure was wholly illegal.

¶71

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that non-consideration of petitioner's representation by respondent before allotment of seats in mop-up round of PG-NEET counselling is arbitrary. Petitioner is eligible to allotment of the PG-Medical seats under the NRI category. Documents submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized and verified by the KEA and satisfied with the credential of the petitioners, they were permitted to participate in mop-up round of counselling under NRI category.

¶72

It is further contended that the KEA has not allotted the vacant NRI category seats of the first and second round to candidates under the NRI category in the mop-up counseling, the said action of KEA is arbitrary and illegal. KEA has not de-categorized the counseling process and allotment of seats is done in terms of the reservation policy for third mop-up round of counseling. Hence, actions

¶73

¶74

8

¶75

of the KEA is arbitrary and illegal. In terms of the Notification issued by KEA, 100 of vacant seats under NRI category have remained vacant after first and second round of counseling and that the petitioner is eligible to participate in the third round of counseling and select such vacant seats. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of permission for allotment of NRI category seats in the third round of counseling is praying for issue of appropriate directions to the authorities. The action of KEA is arbitrary and illegal. The act of the KEA will affect the career of the petitioner and will result in loosing opportunities. KEA ought to have allotted the said vacant seats to the petitioner in order of preference in the option list entered by the petitioner.

¶76

Statement of objections is placed on record in W.P.No.2989/2025 by the second respondent - KEA stating that the petitioner whose NEET All India Ranking is 177251 had become eligible to participate in the counselling only after the MCC lowered the percentile of eligibility in NEET to 15% on 04.01.2025. It is contended that on becoming

¶77

¶78

9

¶79

eligible due to lowering of the eligibility criteria he got his documents verified on 18.01.2025 for appearance in the mop-up round of counselling. It is contended that there were 431 NRI seats available for allotment where the counselling process started. But the total number of students registered under the NRI category in the first instance was only 328. In the first and second round of counselling, a total of 184 NRI seats were filled up and the rest of the seats remained vacant. Therefore, as contemplated in Section 9 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, the unfilled seats were de-categorised as Management Quota Seats and offered for allotment in the second round itself.

¶80

It is further submitted that the second round of

¶81

counselling was held between 17.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 and it was only thereafter that the writ petitioner became eligible due to reduction of the eligibility percentile to 15% as notified by the MCC on 06.01.2025. The mop-up round

¶82

¶83

10

¶84

option entry was held between 20.01.2025 and 23.01.2025. In the seat Matrix, there were 6 cancelled NRI seats were included and offered for NRI students who have taken the cancelled seats in the mop-up round of counselling. It is submitted that the petitioner was not allotted any seat only on account of his low ranking.

¶85

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the de-categorised seats have all been taken by persons having higher marks and ranks than the Writ Petitioners and that the Writ Petitioners who got eligibility to apply for the NRI Seats only pursuant to the Notification dated 15.01.2025, long after the decategorisation, cannot raise any contentions in that regard.

¶86

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maha. P and another v. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 18 SCC 63, has recognized the conversion of NRI seat owing to nonavailability of students.

¶87

¶88

11

¶89

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the contentions advanced.

¶90

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NRI seats stand de-categorized and converted as Management Seats which has defeated his rights. But we notice that the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the selection has occurred only by lowering of the eligibility of percentile by the decision of the MCC dated 04.01.2025 which was notified on 06.01.2025. The petitioners submitted their application and credentials only on 18.01.2025. By that time, admittedly, the NRI seats stood de-categorized and offered as Management Seats.

¶91

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that the de-categorization is not supported by any provision in the brochure or the Rules, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner who came into the picture for the first time pursuant to Notification dated 15.01.2025 cannot be heard to contend that the de-categorization which occurred even before the eligibility of the petitioner, was illegal. Since the de-categorisation had already occurred

¶92

¶93

12

¶94

when the petitioners' eligibility arose, and since the mop-up round was held only for the de-categorised seats, the petitioners cannot raise these contentions. It is further contended that no person who has a lower rank than the writ petitioner has been offered allotment in the management quota seats. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the allotments at this juncture without any of the candidates likely to be affected by the orders as sought for by him on the party array.

¶95

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prayers are sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be granted. The writ petitions, therefore fail. However, we also feel it appropriate to issue directions to the KEA and the State Government for future guidance.

¶96

In the result:-

¶97

(i) The writ petitions are disposed of .

¶98

(ii) It is appropriate to direct the KEA to include the specific provisions as to decategorisation of seats, in the official

¶99

¶100

13

¶101

brochure and to publicise such decategorisation if any, when it occurs, in future selections, so that the participants in the counselling process will be well aware of such actions of the KEA well in advance.

¶102

(iii) The State Government as well as the Director of Medical Education are also directed to look into the said issues as stated above and to issue necessary instructions while the brochures are being prepared by the KEA in future.

¶103

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶104

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶105

cp*

Dr M Shushruth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr M Shushruth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Leelakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B T Shivashankar Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Saniya Banu Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Harnoor Kaur Matharoo Vs Sri. Sri. College of Ayurvedic

Smt Bhagyamma G N Vs the Government of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs Lakshmegowda