Anadishankar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Venketesh Pandey, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from respondents.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned MBBS seat allotment of respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 8 and all orders and actions including admission in MBBS course based upon above MBBS seat allotment, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct for proper action against all responsible persons and authorities and also cancel all illegal admissions in MBBS course of year 2023 and further be pleased to direct for fresh counselling allowing petitioner to participate in it, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, petitioner be granted admission in vacant seat of MBBS course in any medical institute of State of C.G. and further be granted any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process for admission through NEET examination in MBBS course as unreserved category candidate from State of Chhattisgarh and after the result, the petitioner scored 426 marks out of total 720 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner filled the online application form for counselling and admission process of under graduate medical seat in pursuance of notice 22.07.2023, whereby entire schedule of counselling and admission is prescribed along with seat matrix, according to which registration and payment and choice filling and locking for first round of counselling was from 25.07.2023 to 01.08.2023. Thereafter, process of seat allotment was from 04.08.2023 to 05.08.2023 and result was to be published on 06.08.2023. He further submits that after scrutiny was to be done from 07.08.2023 to 16.08.2023 and finally admission was to be done from 07.08.2023 to 17.08.2023 till 5.00 p.m. The round 2, mop-up round and stray vacancy was prescribed as per the given dates, but delay was caused for one or the other reason and admissions were completed by 30.09.2023 and delay was caused from first round of counselling.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration is already done and payment is made by the petitioner and seat preference is also filled up and counselling started in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the counseling of all India Medical seats and State Quota seats are to run according to the prescribed schedule, so that the candidates can properly provide their preference of seats and get admission in MBBS course in best Medical College of their choice and any change in the prescribed schedule of counselling and admission for State Quota seat will severally affect the choice of the candidates/ petitioner because petitioner has the right to either choose Management Quota seat or State Quota seat, but if there will be huge gap between the counselling of All India Seats and State Quota seats then candidate will be deprived from even participating in either one of the quota. He also submits that in each institution including respondent private institutions both Management Quota which is also knows as All India Quota, as well as State Quota seats are distributed, and therefore, also time schedule is required to be strictly adhered to.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after first round of conselling respondent No. 6/Sejal Ekka was allocated Balaji Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 8/Rashid S.M. was allocated Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Science/respondent No.9. However, respondents No. 6 and 8 have not taken admission in their respective respondent colleges. According to Rule 7 (xiv) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Avam Bhautik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Under Graduate Admission Rules, 2018) (for short, ‘Rules of 2018’) after first round of counselling admitted students can participate in second round of counselling for upgradation and after second round of counselling admitted students cannot participate in future counselling or in final allotment. Similarly according to Rule 7 (x) of the Rules of 2018 once any candidate is allotted a seat in any medical institute, then he can not be allotted same seat in same medical institution in any round of counselling or allotment process.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in second round of counselling respondent No. 6 was allotted Shri Shankaracharya Institute/respondent No. 9 and respondent No. 8 is not allotted any medical institute and in third round/mop up round of counselling respondent No. 6 is again allotted Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 8 is allotted Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 9, which are same institutes allotted to them for same seat/ course/ subject in violation of Rule 7 (x) and they were allotted respondent institutes in third round of counselling/mop up round despite allotted twice, in earlier round in violation of Rule 7 (xvi) of the Rules of 2018. He also submits that shockingly in second round of counselling out of total 150 seats of Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 7, total 17 candidates were allotted SC category seats under State quota, whereas total 16 seats allotted to SC quota, out of which only 8 seats allotted under State quota for SC category and 8 seats allotted under Management Quota. It is important to mention here that no NRI SC category candidate is allotted any seat meaning thereby that 9 additional seats were allotted under SC category under State Quota, in Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that similarly only 27 seats of unreserved category under Management Quota is allotted to each respondent colleges, but 34 admissions granted in respondent No. 7/Shri Balaji Institute Medical Science, 46 admissions granted in Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Science/respondent No. 9 and 48 admissions granted respondents RIMS Institute under unreserved Management Quota, till second round of counselling and only after second round reserve seat can be converted. Thus, above process is per say illegal and beneficial only for the private medical institutes. By above illegal process, the petitioner is denied admission and private respondents are granted admission in MBBS course of year 2023.

On the other hand, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the present petition has been preferred with delay, as already the last date of admission has been closed on 30th of September, 2023. The petitioner has prayed for conducting a fresh stray round of counseling for all seats available under the head of unreserved quota is therefore, impermissible as the admissions have already been closed. The contention put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of lack of pleadings in that behalf since as per the Rule 8 of the Rules of 2018 the conversion of seats has been prescribed however, no material has been placed on record to show that in the stray round of private respondent College have acted contrary to the prescribed procedure. As per the notice issued for the stray round of counseling, the list of vacant seats and merit list of individual Medical Colleges was published after the mop-up round by the Department in accordance with law and the admission and scrutiny has been conducted by the concerned College. There is no pleading to the effect that any ineligible candidate has been given admission by the said College nor any of such has been impleaded as a party in the instant petition and in view of the same, the present petition is not maintainable.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

In Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Other, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433, the Hon’ble Supreme Court re-emphasised the strict adherence to the statutory time schedule for admission in various courses. The Supreme Court held as under :

“40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, in as much as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations.”

Considering the submissions made by the parties, more particularly, the fact that last date for admission was 30th of September, 2023, it is difficult to accept the contention made by the petitioner for granting the relief as prayed. Further from the submissions of the petitioner and the pleadings, it is not evident as to in what manner the respondents private institutes have acted contrary to the Rules of 2018 and have given admission to any undeserving candidate.

In light of the aforesaid legal proposition, it is clear that the present petition has been filed at a belated stage when the admission process has already been completed and the petitioner, after having found ineligible in those opportunities, has for the first time raised his grievance without producing and substantiating any material on record, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

In view of foregoing, the writ petition, being without substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.