Dr. Atul Ittimani Mazhavancheryparam Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶23

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

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

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 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 PGNEET 2024 CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY AS NULL AND VOID,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7835-DB W.P. No.3832/2025

¶28

ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE NRI/MANAGEMENT (Q-

¶29

CATEGORY) CATEGORY SEATS & ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

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

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA as well as the learned counsel appearing for the KEA.

¶35

The specific question raised in this writ petition is covered against the petitioners by the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2025 in W.P.No.3293/2025 connected with W.P.No.2989/2025.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an additional ground has been raised in this writ petition with regard to vacant/un-allotted seats in the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7835-DB W.P. No.3832/2025

¶38

management quota which have remained vacant before the conduct of the mop-up round of the counseling. It is submitted that the said issue has not been considered in the earlier judgment.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶40

the respondents also, we notice that we had specifically considered the objections which were filed by respondent No.2 - KEA with regard to the modalities for the selection

¶41

to the de-categorized seats and had found that no person who was lower in merit than the writ petitioners have been considered as against the de-categorized seats. Further, we had also held that since the de-categorization had already occurred before the writ petitioners become eligible for participation in the selection, by the reduction of the percentile by the MCC, the contentions raised cannot be considered. Further, directions for future selections had also been provided by us.

¶42