Aswin Ravindran M vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.The petitioner had qualified in the Entrance Examination for the NEET (PG) Medical Course conducted by the 2nd respondent and secured a score well above 50%, which is the minimum percentile for general category students. He applied under the NRI quota. The 2nd respondent noted certain defects in the application and the petitioner was asked to cure the defects and upload the necessary documents as is evident from Ext.P2 memo. The petitioner contends that he became aware that he was not included in the category list of NRI quota candidates only on 30.1.2022. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.8436 of 2022. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition by Ext.P3 judgment. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the judgment are of some relevance and are extracted below for convenience.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that, while the defect in the relationship certificate uploaded by the petitioner cannot be seen as so critical as to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the NRI quota, the absence of a declaration and an undertaking in the affidavit for NRI sponsorship is a fatal defect as far as the application for consideration under the NRI quota is concerned. It is not in dispute that in the affidavit that was uploaded by the petitioner in this regard, there was no declaration or undertaking by the sponsor to bear the tuition fee and other expenses of the petitioner during the duration of the course that he was seeking admission to. This declaration/undertaking being the very essence of the sponsorship that would entitle the petitioner for applying under the NRI quota, its absence cannot be viewed lightly. We are therefore constrained to hold that in as much as the petitioner did not cure the defect with regard to the NRI sponsorship certificate and upload the proper document within the time granted to him by the respondents, the application of the petitioner under the NRI quota must be seen as defective and not valid.

Before parting with this case and taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there have been occasions where the State Government has extended the period for curing the defects, we make it clear that in the event of the State Government extending the period for curing the defects, then it will be open to the petitioner to cure the defects in the application, notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition. As of now, however, we find ourselves unable to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and accordingly dismissed

The petitioner contends that on 15.3.2022, respondents 1 and 2 have issued Ext.P5 notification inviting applications by lowering the minimum qualifying criteria for Post Graduate Medical Admission. As per Ext.P5, the applications had to be submitted between 3.00 pm on 16.3.2022 and 10.00 am on 19.3.2022. Later, Ext.P7 notification was issued extending the time to cure the defects if any till 23.3.2022. The petitioner asserts that the respondents have granted yet another opportunity to the candidates applying for the NRI quota as per Ext.P5 to submit documents with Embassy/Consulate Attestation by 4.4.2022. In respect of those candidates, seats are allotted provisionally in the mop-up round. Later, Ext.P9 notification was issued calling for registration of option by eligible candidates including provisionally eligible candidates for the mop-up round and the last date for registration of option has been fixed as 31.3.2022. According to the petitioner, students securing less marks than the petitioner are being admitted to NRI seats without proper documentation whereas the petitioner who had secured much higher marks has been sidelined. It is contended that the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to cure the defects in his application, at least at par with the students who have been made eligible subsequently. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

I. To declare that the policy of the 1st/2nd respondent in denying the opportunity to NRI candidates who have secured 50 percentage or more marks in the NEET (PG) 2021 examinations to cure defects in application, while allowing the students who scored less than 50 percentage marks to get provisional admission, sans such documents is arbitrary and illegal.

Ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents requisite to cure the defect in this NRI application, so as to make the petitioner, eligible for counseling the NRI quota for PG medical seat for the year 2021-2022.

In view of the urgency expressed, I have heard the submissions of Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Government Pleader.

Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defects noted were trivial and the respondents ought to have granted the petitioner a breathing time to correct the same. Insofar as the defect in the relationship certificate is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the said defect cannot be said to be critical. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was granted a much less window period than the students who have submitted the applications in terms of Ext.P5. It is submitted that now that the time granted to all those students who have applied pursuant to Ext.P5 has been extended till 04.04.2022, the date on which the students are supposed to join the colleges, similar extension should be granted to the petitioner as well.

Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Government Pleader has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that if the prayer sought for by the petitioner is concerned, it would open a floodgate of applications and the same would unsettle the entire admission process. To substantiate that enough time was granted to the petitioner to correct the defects, it is pointed out that originally time was granted to the NRI quota student to upload the data during the period from 15.01.2022 to 22.01.2022. Later, understanding the difficulties faced, the Government granted extension till 30.01.2022. Later, in respect of those applicants, who had submitted all other documents except Embassy Attestation, the time was extended till 01.03.2022. The petitioner failed to avail the opportunity so granted. It is submitted that the petitioner chose to approach this Court and it was by Ext.P3 judgment dated 16.3.2022 that his request for extension was rejected by this Court. It is also submitted that in Ext.P5, it is specifically mentioned that only students who are newly qualified as per the revised qualification can submit an application and in that view of the matter, the benefit of extension granted as per Ext.P8 can only be extended to those students. Finally, it is submitted that the writ petition was filed only on 30.3.2022 though Ext.P5 notification was issued on 15.3.2022. The petitioner falls in a different category and the extension granted to the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P5 cannot be granted to the petitioner is the submission.

I have considered the submissions advanced.

The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that enough time was not granted to the petitioner to cure the defects which had crept in with regard to the NRI sponsorship certificate. A Division Bench of this Court, after considering the entire aspects, had held that the declaration/undertaking being the essence of sponsorship, its absence cannot be viewed lightly. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not produced either the relationship certificate or the declaration/undertaking of the sponsor. I find that the Government had granted two extensions to the candidates like the petitioner to cure the defects. However, the same was not availed by the petitioner. I also find from Ext.P5 that only those candidates who are newly qualified as per the revised qualification could submit the application for allotment. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied in terms of Ext.P5. The extension of the period having been granted only for those candidates who had submitted applications in terms of Ext.P5, the same cannot be availed of by the petitioner. True, this Court had made it clear that in the event of the State Government extending the period for curing the defects, the petitioner could avail the option. However, the Government has not chosen to extend the period after 1.3.2022.

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. This writ petition is dismissed.