Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

'Seat Blocking In NEET-PG Counselling' : Doctors Move Supreme Court Seeking To Participate In Mop-Up Rounds With Free-Exit Option

Srishti Ojha
13 April 2022 7:58 AM GMT
Seat Blocking In NEET-PG Counselling : Doctors Move Supreme Court Seeking To Participate In Mop-Up Rounds With Free-Exit Option
x

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed urgent listing of a writ petition filed by doctors who appeared in NEET-PG 2021-22 seeking permission to participate in Mop-Up round of counselling with a free exit option.A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli directed the matter to be listed after a request for urgent listing was made by Advocate Charu Mathur...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed urgent listing of a writ petition filed by doctors who appeared in NEET-PG 2021-22 seeking permission to participate in Mop-Up round of counselling with a free exit option.

A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli directed the matter to be listed after a request for urgent listing was made by Advocate Charu Mathur on behalf of the petitioners.

The writ petition has sought directions to the Medical Counselling Committee to provide details of the seats blocked but not joined in Round 2 (and now falling part of Mop-Up round).

The petition has also challenged clause (i) of the modified scheme for allowing the candidates an option of seat blocking and registering in mop-up with forfeiture of security deposit.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had on 31st March cancelled the All India Quota Mop-Up Round Counselling for NEET-PG 2021-2022 admissions in order to resolve the anomalies arising from the addition of 146 seats to the Mop Up Round which were not available to candidates in Rounds 1 and 2 of the AIQ.

The petitioners' grievance is that the candidates who did not join the allotted seat in Round 2 were given an option to participate in the Mop-Up round of counselling subject to forfeiture of security deposit, resulting in many candidates blocking the seat in the second round, not joining the same and further participating in the Mop-Up round.

The petitioner has pointed out that the repercussion of leaving a seat after registering and before joining was forfeiture of the security amount and no penalty whatsoever was imposed at this stage. The hefty penalty was imposed only when a candidate reported to the college and then decided to leave and therefore there were several reported instances of blocking, in absence of a strict safeguard.

Further, Candidates who participated in First and Second Round cannot participate in Mop-Up. Therefore, they will not be eligible for seats (including the seats blocked in second round and now falling part of Mop-Up).

The petition has stated that multiple candidates blocked the seats in second round of the counselling and did not join, and it was found from the seat matrix for Mop-Up round that several prestigious branches were available in the Mop-Up round and candidates with much lower rank were easily getting the said branches in the Mop-Up round which the Petitioner and similarly placed candidates who joined in Round 2 would have easily got.

The petition has stated that the fresh round of counselling to be conducted after Supreme Court's directions will be limited to the candidates who have not joined a seat in Round 1 and 2.

However, an option to participate in the same will not be provided to candidates who joined seat in round 2, however are eligible as per merit for the seat available in the Mop-Up round which he was deprived of only because the same was blocked and not joined in the 2nd round

According to the petitioners, in view of the instances of seat blocking in round 2, the candidates from round 2 be allowed to participate in the mop-up round. If they are not allowed, they will be unjustly deprived of the seats which they were otherwise eligible for.

The petitions have been filed through Dubey Law Chambers and Advocate on Record Charu Mathur.

Case Title: Dr. Yash Jain & Ors. Vs Medical Counselling Committee & Ors.

Next Story