Dismissed

Amrita Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC18 Aug 2017WP(C)/892/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging eligibility for MBBS admission as physically handicapped candidate. Court held NECET Chapter 6 criteria applies to both All India and State quotas. Petitioner failed to meet 40th percentile cut-off. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet the minimum eligibility criteria of 40th percentile for SC-PH candidates as per NEET guidelines.

Amrita Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶4

Smt. Amrita Das , daughter of Pratap Chandra Das, resident of Chandipur,P.O. Chandipur, P.S. Kailasahar, District- Unakoti,Tripura

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus –

¶7

The State of Tripura , represented by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura

¶8

The Director of Medical Education , Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura

¶9

The Principal , Agartala Government Medical College and GBP Hospital, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist. West Tripura

¶10

The Principal , Tripura Medical College and Dr. BR Ambedkar Hospital, Hapania, P.O. & P.S. Amtali, Dist. West Tripura

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate For respondents : Mr. DC Nath, Addl. GA Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and Order : 18.08.2017 . Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶15

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶16

Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. DC Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶17

2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged inter alia that the reservation policy in respect of the physically handicapped persons is grossly erroneous and in contravention of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶19

¶20

petitioner has further urged this court for a direction upon the respondents to admit the petitioner in the MBBS course pursuant to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2017 against 2(two) earmarked posts for physically handicapped person, as was available on first round of counseling held on 21.07.2017.

¶21

3. The respondents by filing the reply however did not challenge the status of the petitioner being physically handicapped person[SC], but they have categorically submitted that the petitioner does not have the minimum qualifying mark for admission in the MBBS course. In paragraph 9 of their reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has not been denied admission in the MBBS course for the session 2017-18 against the physically handicapped seats for any other reason than that she does not have the minimum eligibility criteria to get such admission. The respondents have stated as follows:

¶22

“ …. It has been found that the petitioner secured total 40 marks only out of 720 marks and in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG)-2017 (in short NEET). The petitioner obtained 6.794608 percentile secured out of 100 percent percentile score but the cut of percentile is required 40^th percentile in case of Schedule Caste-Physical Handicapped candidates (in short SC-PH). But as per guideline of the competent authority Central Board of Secondary Education (in short CBSE) 107 marks and 40^th percentile is the Cut off score to be eligible for Counseling of MBBS/BDS seats for admission to the reserved category including SC Physically Handicapped candidates.

¶23

It is further to be mentioned here that as per Information Bulletin of NEET published by the Central Board of Secondary Education the eligible percentile required for admission of the MBBS/BDS courses for SC PH is 40^th percentile. But the petitioner obtained 6.794608 percentile. So the petitioner could not be eligible for counseling and awarding the seat ”.

¶24

4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has strenuously argued

¶25

before this court that the percentile as referred by the respondents is only applicable for All India quota [15%]. For the remaining 85% which falls within the State quota, the different W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶26

¶27

criteria has to be laid by the State. In this respect, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has referred to paragraph 4.b of the Information Bulletin where the following has been provided:

¶28

“ADMISSION IN STATE MEDICAL COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES/INSITUTIONS/AFMC/PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES FOR SEATS OTHER THAN 15% ALL INDIA QUOTA.

¶29

(i) Admission under State Quota Seats shall be subject to reservation policy and eligibility criteria prevailing in the State/Union Territory as notified by the respective State/Union Territory from time to time.

¶30

(ii) The reservation of the seats in medical colleges for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in State/Union Territory concerned. (iii) Admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in Private Medical Colleges shall be subject to policies of the Government of India/State/Union Territory. (iv) Admission to AFMC, Pune shall be subject to the norms prescribed by the Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical Services, Ministry of Defence and Government of India. Candidates who apply for NEET(UG)-2017 and also seeking admission in AFMC will also have to apply to AFMC on www.afmc.nic.in / www.afmcdg1d.gov.in. The short listed candidates will be required to appear for a second stage Screening Test conducted by AFMC. Candidates are advised to contact AFMC for further and exact details.

¶31

[Emphasis added]

¶32

According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel the stipulation at 4(b)(i) that eligibility criteria prevailing in the State shall mean and imply that the State shall lay down the separate eligibility criteria, but this court finds in Chapter 6 of the said Information Bulletin the eligibility criteria which has been laid down as follows:

¶33

“ 1 Eligibility Criteria

¶34

The Central Board of Secondary Education will prepare an All India Merit List of successful candidates of NEET – 2017 on the basis of the eligibility criteria provided by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India as given in Graduate Medical Education Regulations-1997 issued under Indian Medical Council Act-1956 and BDS Course Regulations, 2007 under the Dentists Act, 1948. The eligibility criteria are as follows:

¶35

(a) In order to be eligible for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test to MBBS/BDS Courses held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates with locomotor disability of lower limbs terms of Clause 4(a) iv (of regulations), the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile for UR-PH and 40th percentile for SC-PH, ST-PH & OBC-PH candidates. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All India common merit list in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS courses.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶37

¶38

(b)Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to MBBS/ BDS Courses, the Central Government in consultation with Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only.

¶39

(c) To be eligible for the admission to MBBS/BDS Courses, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology at the Qualifying Examination as mentioned in Graduate Medical Education Regulations-1997 and BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and in addition must have come in the merit list of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. In respect of the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC category the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology taken in qualifying examination and competitive examination (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) be 40% marks instead of 50%. In respect of candidates with locomotor disability of lower limbs, the minimum of 45% marks for Gen-PH and 40% marks for SC-PH/ ST-PH/OBCPH are required. Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS/BDS courses, he shall not be admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria as specified above.”

¶40

[Emphasis added]

¶41

4. Mr. Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have particularly referred to the mark sheet of the petitioner of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test(UG)-2017 (Annexure R-2 to their reply) wherefrom it clearly transpires that the petitioner got 6.794608 percentile whereas cut off marks for the SC-PH is 40^th percentile and cut off score is 130-107 whereas the petitioner had got only 40 in the score and hence the respondents did not entertain the petitioner for participating in the counseling. There had been no other reasons.

¶42

5. So far the submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel is concerned, this court is of the view that the eligibility criteria as laid down in Chapter 6 is both for 15% of All India quota as well

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶44

¶45

as for 85% of the State quota. The State does not have any role or authority to lay down the eligibility criteria so far the admission of MBBS/BDS courses is concerned. The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)-2017 was visualized for the purpose that there shall not be any compromise regarding the eligibility criteria in any part of the country either by the Government Colleges or by the Private Colleges. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel does not hold any substance and accordingly the same is rejected.

¶46

6. The petitioner cannot be treated eligible for admission to MBBS/BDS courses as PH-SC as she did not get the cut off marks and the minimum eligibility criteria. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a SC candidate. However, since the petitioner does not acquire the eligibility criteria, as discussed above, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶47

7. Before parting, the other grounds of challenging the action of the respondents, as raised, have not been considered by the court as the petitioner lacks the very status to get admission in the MBBS/BDS course in terms of the Eligibility Criteria as laid down under Chapter 6 of the Information Bulletin.

¶48

8. The Information Bulletin contains a clause relating to relaxation of the Eligibility Criteria. If it is found during the mopping up counseling, if it is found that the candidates were not available in the category of the Physically Handicapped W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

¶49

¶50

quota, the State government shall not leave any seat unfilled and for that purpose the State may take steps to get relaxation of the Eligibility Criteria. If found, the petitioner was in the relaxed eligibility zone, her case, needless to say be considered for admission to the PH-SC category in the MBBS course.

¶51

9. Having observed thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, as passed earlier stands vacated.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Saikat

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 892 of 2017

Amrita Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrita Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anantahari Jamatia Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Anil Ch. Som Vs Udaipur Nagar Panchayet and 2 Ors.

Md. Abdul Malib Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Sumanta Bhattacharjee Vs T.S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Ranju Sen Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bishnupada Sarkar Vs Govt. of Tripura and Ors.