NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Refusing to grant relief to NEET-UG candidate who could not secure admission to MBBS course, the Delhi High Court observed that the correction of a legal error on reservation to align with constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be considered as a procedural breach or administrative fault on part of the authorities.Not finding any illegality in decision of the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and the Delhi University in rectifying conversion algorithm where Scheduled Castes-Children/Women's (SC-CW) seats were initially proposed to be converted to Unreserved-Children/Women's (UR-CW) seats, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed “The correction of an unintentional legal error prior to the counselling process cannot be construed as a procedural breach or administrative fault. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for intervention. The case exemplifies the courts' measured approach to reservation-related disputes, prioritizing procedural integrity and Constitutional principles.” The petitioners sought relief against the denial of admission to the MBBS Course under the NEET-UG 2024-25 in the Delhi University. The petitioners are eligible for educational concession for admission to Delhi University against the Armed Forces quota. Under the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme for NEET 2024, SC (CW) seats were initially supposed to be converted to UR (CW) seats during the third round of counselling. However, before the third round of counseling, this algorithm was changed and unfilled ST (CW) and SC (CW) seats would revert to ST and SC categories, respectively, rather than being converted to UR (CW). The respondent authorities said that the change was made align with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court rulings. The petitioners contended that despite being eligible for MBBS seats in DU/GGS IP Universities under the CW category, they were not allocated seats even after the third counselling round results. They argued that respondent authorities committed a serious error by failing to implement the Information Bulletin. On the other hand, MCC submitted that the change was announced before the third round of counselling commenced and that as per the Information bulletin, the conversion of seats were to be carried out during the round three only if the candidates belonging to the said conversion category had exhausted. It stated that no UR (CW) seats were left vacant in the third round and hence the petitioners could not have been accommodated under the CW quota. National Medical Council (NMC) also submitted upon legal scrutiny, the initial conversion mechanism was found to be inconsistent with constitutional reservation principles and thus required modification. The High Court noted that when horizontal reserved category seats remain unoccupied after two rounds of counselling, the Constitution and Supreme Court directives mandate redistribution of seats to ensure no allocated seat goes waste for marginalized communities. It noted that CW reserved seats in ST-CW categories revert to the main ST, SC-CW to the main SC, OBC-CW to the main OBC and UR-CW to the main UR. Considering judicial precedents, the Court noted that to grant relief in reservation cases, the following conditions need to be met: (i) No fault attributable to the candidate; (ii) Expeditious pursuit of legal remedies; (iii) Demonstrable fault by authorities with apparent rule violations; and (iv) Proven superior merit compared to admitted candidates.In the present case, the Court was of the view that the petitioners failed to meet the standards. It noted that the conversion algorithm for the CW Category was corrected before the third round of counseling. It stated that no substantive fault could be attributed to the respondent authorities as the initial legal inconsistency in the conversion algorithm was proactively rectified. Observed that the 'unintentional legal error' on part of the authorities could not be considered as a procedural breach, it observed that a Court cannot issued a direction that would require the authorities to continue with an action that is legally flawed. “Therefore, the legal infirmity in the CW Conversion Algorithm, which was inconsistent with the Constitution of India and Supreme Court rulings, was rightly rectified in accordance with Article 16(4), Article 141, and Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent no.1/MCC and the Respondent no.6/University of Delhi corrected this unintentional legal error to align the algorithm with Constitutional reservation principles. This rectification cannot be considered a post facto change in the rules of the game, as it was merely a correction made before the third round of counselling to ensure compliance with the law.” The petitioners relied on Yashika Malik v. University of Delhi Faculty of Medical Sciences & Ors (2024), where a division bench of Delhi High Court...

NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanjana Dadmi

NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers