NEET PG 2023 | Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates Entitled To Reserved Disciplines If Preferred Choice Unavailable In Open Merit: J&K High Court

Highlighting the mandate of Rule 17 of the J&K Reservation Rules Justice Sanjay Dhar further clarified that the leftover discipline/stream/college in the open merit category shall thereafter be allocated to the reserved category candidate who would get selected consequent upon the reserved category candidate having been selected in open merit category.

The pronouncement to this effect was made while hearing a plea moved by 12 NEET-PG aspirants challenging the provisional selection list of NEET-PG 2023 issued by J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) on August 20.

Advocate Salih Pirzada for the petitioners, including those from the Sports Category (No. 1 to 3) and the RBA category (No. 4 to 8), argued that despite their high merit, they were treated as open merit candidates and denied the benefits of Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules. They claimed that their preferred disciplines were allocated to reserved category candidates with lower merit.

Similarly, petitioners No. 9 to 12, belonging to the reserved RBA category, alleged they were not allotted any seats in the reserved category, and candidates with inferior merit received seats in their preferred disciplines.

Their challenge to the provisional selection list 2023 was based on the violation of J&K Reservation Rules, asserting that they had been unfairly denied preferred disciplines/seats in favour of reserved category candidates with lower merit. Adv Pirzada argued that the interpretation and application of Rule 17 by the respondents were erroneous, placing Meritorious Reserved Category candidates (No. 1 to 3) at a disadvantage compared to reserved category candidates with lower merit.

In order to adjudicate the matter the court examined the Rules 17 of the Reservation Rules and observed that the aforesaid Rule has been incorporated in order to safeguard the interests of a reserved category candidate who by virtue of his merit has made it to the open merit category.

“The object of the said Rule is to avoid a situation where meritorious reserved category candidate would be put to a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis a reserved category candidate in the matter of choice of discipline/stream/ college”, Justice Dhar recorded.

Referencing Mehdi Ali and Ors. vs. State 2019 the court observed that an MRC candidate switching to the open merit category is also eligible to choose from the streams available in the general category while adding that the remaining seats/streams are open to all selected candidates based on merit, regardless of their category. These remaining seats are allocated according to merit and the candidates' preferences, emphasizing a merit-cum-preference approach, the court clarified.

Highlighting Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules, the bench clarified that the selection of candidates from reserved categories for different streams must strictly adhere to their inter se merit, treating them collectively as a single class for stream allocation.

Emphasizing the second proviso to Rule 17 concerning PG courses, the court explained that the remaining disciplines should be incorporated into the pool of candidates following Rule 15 and allocated based on merit-cum-preference.

The court further emphasized that once the leftover disciplines are included in the pool of reserved category candidates, they must be treated as a cohesive group for stream allocation and the allocation thereafter should be carried out strictly based on their inter se merit-cum-preference.

Dealing with the contention of respondent BOPEE that Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules has to be made applicable to the extent of streams available in respect of a particular reserved category, the court termed the contention contrary to the legal position emanating from a conjoint reading of Rule 17 and Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules and added,

“The respondents could not have restricted applicability of Rule 17 to the number of seats/disciplines earmarked for a particular reserved category, as has been done by them in the instant case”.

In response to BOPEE's justification, which was presented in the form of a legal opinion from the Law department whereby it had been advised that the advantages of Rule 17 needed to be expanded to include meritorious candidates from the EWS category, Justice Dhar observed,

“As the seats earmarked for the EWS category are not available in all the institutions, as such, the applicability of Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules in the manner it was done in the previous past was causing imbalance and confusion,”

It added,

“The logic projected by the respondents for deviating in applicability of Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules does not appear to be sound for the reason that on ground it has resulted in hardship to meritorious category candidates, inasmuch as the petitioners are definitely more meritorious than those category candidates who have been allocated disciplines/seats regarding which the petitioners had given their preference”.

Pointing out to distribution of seats laid down under Rule 15 Justice Dhar said that even if benefit of Rule 17 is extended to MRCs of EWS category also, the same would not cause any difficulty or imbalance.

“An MRC of EWS category could be granted discipline of his choice from the reserved category pool if his choice is not available in the open merit and thereafter the seat/discipline earmarked for EWS category would contribute to the general pool of reserved category candidates”, Justice Dhar maintained.

Terming the application of the Reservation Rules erroneous the bench held four candidates entitled to admission in MS Ortho in GMC, Srinagar, MD Psychiatry in SKIMS, Srinagar, MS General Surgery in GMC, Jammu and MS Orthopedics in GMC, Jammu.

However, noting that the admission process has come to an end on 20th October, 2023 and the petitioners had approached the court quite early when the provisional list was out the court instructed the BOPEE to reserve one seat each in the specified disciplines and institutions for the four petitioners in the upcoming session.

Prohibiting the respondent board from including the specified seats/disciplines for admission selection in the PG Course for 2024 the court directed the respondents to compensate each of these four candidates with a sum of Rs 2.00 lakhs for unjustly denying their rightful claims.

Case Title: Nadeem Ur Rehman Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 284

Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Salih Pirzada.

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Mohsin S. Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment