Pooja D/O. Rajshekhar Patil vs Karnataka Examiniations Authority

S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, J

The petitioner is a NEET-MDS candidate for the academic year 2022-23 and the petitioner appeared for the entrance test and has cleared the same with a ranking of AIR 6338. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for counseling for PG-MDS and after the results of the first round of counseling were announced the petitioner was shown as having qualified for Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, Bengaluru. The petitioner submits that the counseling process as it progresses would include the option of exercising choice as per the flow chart shown at Annexure-D. The petitioner submits that she intended to exercise choice No.3 which stipulates not satisfied, but wish to participate in the second round without holding any seat. However, by oversight and bonafede mistake choice No.2 has been exercised. Choice No.2 provides for being satisfied, but wish to participate in second round by holding the allotted seat and after the prior payment of fees and submission of the originals and then wait for the second round.

The petitioner submits that subsequently it was discovered that the petitioner was ineligible to attend the further rounds of counseling as the choice that was exercised was choice No.2 instead of choice No.3 and the petitioner had not paid the fees as required to be done as choice No.2 was exercised. After noticing such error the appropriate representation was made at Annexure-E with a request to the authority respondents to consider representation and permit to proceed in NEET-PG counseling in the second round.

Upon notice learned counsel Miss. Surabhi Kulkarni appears for the respondent.

It is to be noticed that in terms of the flow chart at Annexure-D, the progression to the second round would be available to the candidates who exercise either choice No.2 or choice No.3. Even if the submission that bonafide mistake had occurred in so far as the petitioner is concerned is not accepted, the petitioner would still be entitled to progress to the second round of seat allotment. Even in case of choice No.2 it must be noted that in case of a candidate who has exercised the option as per the chart but not paid the fees, the seat would still be available in the second round and this is clear from the E-information bulletin at point No.9 which reads as under;

SECOND ROUND SEAT ALLOTMENT:

i) The following types of seats are made available for second round seat allotment.

a. Unfilled seats of First Round.

b. Choice 3 seats of First Round.

c. Choice 4 seats of First Round.

d. Exercised Choice 1 in First Round but failed to make payment or not joined the college.

e. Exercised Choice 2 in First Round but failed to make payment.

f. Cancelled / Surrendered seats.

g. Candidates allotted seats in First Round but failed to exercise their Choice within the last date.

h. Newly added seats if any. (All India Quota)

i. Consequential Vacancies.

Accordingly, in light of the said facts, no prejudice would be caused. It would be appropriate to direct the authority to make necessary correction in so far as choice of the candidate is concerned and to treat the choice as having been made of choice No.3 instead of choice No.2 and permit the petitioners to participate in the second and further round of seat allotment. However, in light of the lapse of the petitioner, petitioner would be liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. In light of the order passed and as it is submitted that the last date for exercise of option for second round has concluded and it would meet the ends of justice to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to exercise choice, in so far as second round of counseling.

The Court has also kept in mind that the interference in these matters is only as a exception, but having noted that the petition is filed on 4th and the option list for second round seat allotment was closed only on 7th during the pendency of the proceedings and that the delay in posting of the matter cannot be attributed into the petitioner. As such the order as above is passed to meet the ends of justice and it is made clear in this order that it cannot be relied upon as a precedent in other matters and has been passed on the peculiar facts of the case. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.