The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to permit the petitioner to amend/modify her category as other backward classes in the national eligibility cum entrance test-PG (NEET-PG) application.
The Court observed that sheer inadvertence should not be a ground to deny a candidate of an opportunity if she is otherwise duly entitled on merit, for it would be contrary to the very objective of the NEET process itself, that is, an opportunity to the best of the lot.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a doctor by profession having completed her Under Graduation and is an aspirant for a Post Graduation course. She enrolled in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test-PG (NEET-PG) and completed the entrance examination. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to the Vokkaliga caste which is categorized under the Other Backward Category (OBC) in the State of Karnataka. While filling up the online registration application, the petitioner failed to choose her caste under the quota reserved for OBC and inadvertently classified herself as competing under the General Merit Category (GMC). This was despite her having categorically described herself as belonging to the Vokkaliga Caste, entitled to reservation under the OBC. In support of her caste status, she has also produced the caste certificate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the error was a result of inadvertence and oversight. The fact that the petitioner hails from a caste entitled to reservation is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner is eligible to seek admission is also not in dispute but subject to an order of merit. He prayed that the petitioner, despite being qualified for consideration, is now being sought to be turned away at the threshold itself. If such an attempt is permitted, it could cause severe hardship and could mar the career prospects of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner having been indolent and negligent does not deserve any sympathy or sympathetic consideration of his case by this Court. He contended that such misplaced sympathy would result in a deluge and would have a catastrophic effect on the process. He would submit that the process as evidenced by the reply, having reached a point of no return, it would be inappropriate for this Court to attempt to turn the clock back.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the respondents have not placed on record any material to demonstrate as to whether any opportunity has been given to the petitioner to seek to correct her mistakes. The examinations were held in January and the application to correct the entry was made way back in April 2023.
The Court observed that the petitioner was diligent and made a request; there is no ground justifying the failure of the respondents to consider the representation. It is not that the introduction of the petitioner into the merit list would open up the floodgates as the counseling depends not only on the number of candidates but also on the cut-off marks that may be fixed by the competent authority. The mere alteration of the list will not prejudice any of the candidates found in the merit list.
The Court said that sheer inadvertence should not be a ground to deny a candidate of an opportunity if she is otherwise duly entitled on merit, for it would be contrary to the very objective of the NEET process itself, that is, an opportunity to the best of the lot.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that respondent No.1 is directed to permit the petitioner to correct the entry in Column No.7 of the application/scorecard and amend it to read from General to OBC.
Case Title: Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda vs National Board Of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 12859 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam S. Bharadwaj
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. H. Shanthibhushan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :