Vice Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Uttarakhand Medical Education University And Another vs Dr. Sakshi Sah & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Issue notice.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 2 & 5 and Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 appear and accept notice.

We have heard learned counsels at some length.

Though, there appears to be merit in the grievance of the writ-petitioner that the appellants initially represented that there would be two rounds of counselling, followed by a mop up round, in terms of the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court and communicated by the N.M.C., which was subsequently changed by the appellants on 18.10.2022 to say that there would be only one round of counselling called the ‘main round’ (as if the first and the second round are being merged), followed by a mop up round, which misled the respondent-writ petitioner into not registering and paying the fee for the main round, the fact of the matter is that the respondent despite being aware of the aforesaid decision to conduct only one main round of counseling, followed by mop up round on 18.10.2022, waited till the conclusion of main round to approach this Court by filing the writ petition, only on 02.11.2022. If she had approached this Court immediately on or after 18.10.2022, there would still have been ample time to direct the appellants to open the portal to enable the respondent-writ petitioner, and others like her, to register and deposit the fee to be able to participate in the main round of counselling. She, however, waited till the conclusion of the main round of counselling before approaching the Court.

In these circumstances, in our view, it would not be equitable and it would cause grave administrative inconvenience and it may also disrupt the process of counselling, if the appellants are required to hold a special round of counselling for the respondent-writ petitioner alone-when there may be scores of other similarly situated candidates, who have lost out on account of the appellants’ decision to hold only one round i.e. the main round of counselling. The respondent-writ petitioner consciously did not register herself and pay the fee for participating in the main round - which she assumed was the first round, by claiming that she desires to participate in the second round (which was never to be held, or held). Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice, if the respondent-writ petitioner is permitted to participate in the mop up round and she is given a choice of allocation, according to her merit.

Mr. Saini, who appears for the National Medical Commission, submits that in the mop up round, whatever seats in the State are left unfilled in the All India Quota, are also added to the State Quota. Therefore, the kitty of the mop up round is likely to be larger than the kitty of seats, which would have been available, even if the second round of counselling were to be held, in which the respondent-writ petitioner desired to participate.

We, therefore, modify the impugned order and direct that the respondent-writ petitioner should be allowed to participate in the mop up round, which is scheduled for 17.11.2022, according to her own merit.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.