Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Sao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 5873 of 2022
1. Rajendra Kumar Sao S/o Bhuwan Lal Sao, aged about 32 years,
R/o - Village - Bunga, Tehsil - Pusaur, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
2. Mayank Dewangan S/o Lekhram Dewangan, aged about 20 years,
R/o - House No. 588, Ward No. - 14, School Chauk, Potiyadih,
District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health And
Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel,
D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. National Medical Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex,
Block A, Ina, New Delhi - 110023.
4. Union of India Through - Medical Counselling Committee Director
General of Health Services, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110108.
5. Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, Temple
Lane, New Delhi, Delhi - 110002.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1&2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government
counsel.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
09.01.2023
Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3, Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned
Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 and
Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5.
2. The petitioners belong to 'OBC' category and they had appeared in
the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Text (UG)-2022 (NEET). The
petitioners No. 1 and 2 had obtained 98 and 93 marks, respectively, in
the said examination.
3. The admitted position is that the petitioners did not register for
counselling. The mop-up round, after the first and second round of BDS
course counselling, was concluded on 15.12.2022.
4. On 21.12.2022, the respondent No. 3 issued a notification for fresh
registration of students for filling up vacant seats in the stray round.
Registration was to be done in between 22.12.2022 and 25.12.2022.
5. At that stage, the petitioners wanted to register to participate in the
stray round. However, being not successful in registering, this present
writ petition is filed.
6. It is stated by the petitioners that their request for registration was
not accepted as their marks are below 117 in NEET (UG)-2022.
7. 117 is the minimum cut-off mark for unreserved category
candidates.
8. Relying on the affidavit filed, Mr. Vikram Sharma submits that during
the mop-up round, there were no candidates belonging to OBC, SC and
ST category seeking admission in private medical colleges, and
therefore, by taking recourse to Clause 8.4 of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa,
Dant Chikitsa, Bhutik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snathak Pravesh Niyam,
2018, for short, Niyam, 2018, the vacant seats were converted to
unreserved category. It is further submitted by him that in respect of
government colleges for the stray round, names were recommended who
had earlier registered on the basis of 1:10 as per the judgment rendered
in DAR-US-SLAM Educational Trust and Others vs. Medical Council of
India & Others. Accordingly, it is submitted that registration was not
accepted as for unreserved category, minimum qualifying mark was 117
and petitioners had scored marks less than that in the NEET
examination.
9. Clause 8.4 of Niyam, 2018 reads as follows :
**8- vkjf{kr lhVksa dk vU; [email protected]{kr Js.kh esa
[email protected] %&
xxx xxx xxx
¼4½ ;fn vkjf{kr Js.kh esa ik= vH;kFkhZ miyC/k u gks rks] fjDr
lhVksa dks mijksDr mifu;e vuqlkj vU; Jsf.k;ksa esa ifjofrZr fd;k
tk;sxk A
10. Since the submission of Mr. Sharma that there were no candidates
belonging to SC, ST and OBC in the mop-up round is not controverted, it
was permissible to convert such seats to unreserved category.
11. In view of the above factual scenario, we are of the opinion that no
relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
