Chattisgarh High Court
Aadya Gargi Deepak vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 1717 of 2022
Aadya Gargi Deepak D/o Shri Kapil Dev Deepak Aged About 19
Years R/o B-17, Avinash New County, Sector 30, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Education Shastri
Bhawan New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Health And
Family Welfare Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Directorate Of Medical Education Through The Director , Directorate
of Medical Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi and Ms. Diksha
Gouraha, Advocates.
For Respondents No.1&2 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel
For Respondent No. 3&4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Gautam Chourdiya, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08/04/2022
Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi and Ms. Diksha Gouraha,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central
Government counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr.
Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.
3 and 4.
2. The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance
Test (UG) 2021 under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and obtained
130 marks out of 720 and secured All India Rank of 8,03,027 and SC
category rank of 96,236.
3. On 31.01.2022, merit list was published for the State of
Chhattisgarh for the admission year 2021 for first counselling of
MBBS/BDS. The petitioner applied for counselling and paid the requisite
fee in the first round of counselling. However, she was not allotted a seat
because of her merit position. The petitioner also participated in the
second round of counselling after registering herself for the same and by
paying the requisite fee. On 31.03.2022, a notification for tentative mop-
up round was published and then only the petitioner came to know that
her name was there in the second allotment list and as stated in the
petition, since the petitioner did not appear in the second round of
scrutiny, she had become ineligible to participate in the mop-up round in
view of clause Rule 7(xvi) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa
Evam Bhautik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (for
short, the Rules of 2018). It is pleaded in the petition that she was under
a presumption that she will receive e-mail or SMS about allotment and
since she did not receive any such message, she had an impression that
she was not selected. It was also pleaded that allotment list was not
available in the website.
4. It is in the background of the aforesaid facts, prayer is made in
the petition to direct the authorities to consider her candidature for mop-
up and stray rounds of counselling.
5. On 07.04.2022, the petitioner filed an application (IA No. 2 of
2022) praying for addition of further relief which is as follows:
"10.4 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly please to
quash/set aside the arbitrary Rule 7(xvi) of
Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bhautik
Chikitsa Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018, governing
the NEET UG Counselling 2021 in the State of
Chhattisgarh."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he
is not pressing the said application.
7. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
registration is required for the stray round of counselling and because she
was registered for the first and second round of counselling, she should
be allowed to participate in the stray round of counselling. Mr. Rastogi
relies on a judgment dated 04.04.2022 passed by this Court in Radhika
Mangtani v. Union of India & Others {WPC No. 1685/2022}.
8. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that in Sonal Soni v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Another, WPC No. 1136/2022, which was decided on
08.03.2022, this Court held that admission to MBBS course cannot be
considered in any event unless the intending candidate registers for the
second round of counselling and had accordingly declined the prayer
made by the writ petitioner in the said case to enable her to participate in
the second round of counselling. It is submitted that the aforesaid
decision rendered in Sonal Soni (supra), however, could not be brought
to the notice of the Court. Though the petitioner had registered for the
second round of counselling, as the petitioner did not avail the seat, she
is not entitled to participate in further rounds of counselling in view of
provision contained in Rule 7(xvi) of the Rules of 2018. It is submitted
that the plea taken by the petitioner that the allotment list was not
available in the website is a plea taken for the purpose of this case and
all the candidates had taken admission on the basis of their names
figuring in the allotment list in the website. It is also submitted that there is
no provision for sending e-mail or SMS individually to the candidates and
it is made very clear in Note-4 of the notification dated 05.02.2022 that
the candidates should visit the website as indicated therein regularly for
obtaining information regarding counselling process, allotment etc. It is
submitted by Mr. Pali that mop-up round of counselling is also completed.
9. Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel for the
respondents No. 1 and 2, offers no comments.
10. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2018 provides for counselling process.
Rule 7(v) of the Rules of 2018 provides that online application and
registration process would be available only prior to the first counselling.
It will be mandatory for the eligible candidates desirous of taking
admission to complete the application process and registration. If seats
remain vacant even after participation of these registered applicants, then
new registration could be got done as per the decision of the Director.
11. In Sonal Soni (supra), this Court had held that upgradation of
seats and admission to MBBS course cannot be considered unless the
intending candidate registers for the second round of counselling and that
the time line fixed by the authorities for admission process need to be
adhered to and therefore, no direction can be issued for reopening of the
portal to enable the petitioner to register her name for the purpose of the
second round of counselling.
12. A perusal of the judgment rendered in Radhika Mangtani
(supra), would go to show that the contention was advanced on behalf of
the petitioner that the petitioner could not get seat in the first and second
round of counselling as she was not selected in order of merit. It was
contended that she was not allowed to participate in the mop-up round as
she was not registered. This Court held that only because of the fact that
registration was not done for the mop-up round, merit of the petitioner
cannot be given a back seat. From perusal of the judgment, it would
appear that the petitioner in Radhika Mangtani (supra) had registered for
the second round of counselling.
13. Dr. Jitendra Tiwari, Senior Member, Counselling Committee,
who is present in the Court today, makes a categorical statement that no
new registration is required for enabling a candidate to participate in the
mop-up round and once the candidate registers for the second round of
counselling, he or she is entitled to be considered in the other rounds of
counselling.
14. In the guidelines for stray vacancy round issued by the Medical
Counselling Committee, it is indicated that no new registration/payment
option is available for online stray vacancy round. Amongst others, it is
stated that the choice exercised by the candidates in the mop-up round
would be considered for allotment of seats in the stray vacancy round.
15. Rule 7(xvi) of the Rules of 2018, amongst others, provides that
in the last admission process, the candidates who are already registered
but not allotted/not admitted/admitted to Dental Colleges would be eligible
for admission to the Medical Colleges. Once seat is allotted and the
candidate does not take admission, he is not entitled to take further part
in the mop-up round or the stray round of counselling.
16. In the notification dated 05.02.2022, under Note-4, it is indicated
specifically that for information relating to ensuing counselling process
and allotment etc., the website i.e. www.cgdme.co.in should be regularly
visited. As the petitioner has not taken admission despite being selected,
no case is made out for directing her to enable her to attend the stray
round of counselling.
17. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no direction
can be issued to allow the petitioner to participate in the stray vacancy
round.
18. The writ petition is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Gautam Chourdiya)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
