Karnataka High Court
Dr Shehan Hashim vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 3293 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 2989 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
W.P.No.3293/2025:
BETWEEN:
1 . DR. M. SHUSHRUTH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT. SUMA NURSING HOME
NAREPPAKUNTE ROAD
K.R. EXTENSION
WARD No.5, CHINTHAMANI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125
2 . DR. CHALLAMURI SHAM SATHWIK
S/O SRI. CHALLAMURI MURALI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT. FLAT No.19
SWIMMING POOL LAYOUT
VIZIANAGARAM CONTONMENT
VIZIANAGARAM
ANDHRA PRADESH-535 003
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
-
2
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110 007
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. MEDICAL COUNSELING COMMITTEE (MCC)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM No.352, A-WING
NIRMAN BHAVAN
MAULANA AZAD ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
4. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA)
18TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
5. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
K.R. ROAD, FORT
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R5;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3;
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DECLARING
THAT THE FINAL ALLOTMENT OF MOP-UP ROUND OF
COUNSELLING OF THE PG-NEET 2024 CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT No-4 KEA AS NULL AND VOID, ONLY WITH
-
3
RESPECT TO THE NRI/ MANAGEMENT (Q-CATEGORY) CATEGORY
SEATS AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.2989/2025:
BETWEEN:
DR. SHEHAN HASHIM
S/O DR. HASMI KEYI C.P.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. LIHANS, MLA ROAD
KOTTOOLI, KUTHIRAVATTOM PO
KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 016
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE FINAL ALLOTMENT
OF MOP-UP ROUND OF COUNSELLING OF THE PG-NEET 2024
CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 KARNATAKA
EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY AS NULL AND VOID, ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE NRI/MANAGEMENT (Q-CATEGORY) CATEGORY
SEATS AND ETC.
-
4
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ petitions are filed seeking substantially the
same reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.No.2989/2025 are
as follows:-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that
the final allotment of Mop-Up round of counseling of the
PG-NEET 2024 conducted by the respondent No.2
Karnataka Examinations Authority as null and void, only
with respect to the NRI/Management (Q-Category)
category seats; and
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prepare a list of
vacant/unallotted seats under the NRI Category and
Management/Q-Category seats that have remained
vacant before conduct of the mop-up round of counseling
and thereafter to conduct afresh the mop-up round of
counseling of the PG NEET-2024 by the Karnataka
Examinations Authority; and thereafter to allot seats to
the petitioner in terms of the inter-se merit under the NRI
Category; and
-
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the
facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The writ petitioners contend that they are the NRI
candidates aspiring for NEET PG Seat in pursuance to the
KEA Notification for the year 2024-2025. It is contended
that though NRI Category candidates were available for the
selection, the KEA had de-categorized the unfilled, in-service
and NRI Quota Seats in the second round of counseling itself
which had denied a chance to NRI candidates to be selected
against the NRI Quota Seats. It is contended that pursuant
to the Notification dated 15.01.2025, calling for PG Medical
candidates, who became eligible for admission due to the
lowering of eligibility criteria, the applicants had participated
in the allotment procedure. The brochure issued by the KEA
specifically provided that NRI Quota Seats would be allotted
to NRI candidates and the petitioners were also permitted to
submit options in the NRI Quota. However, by de-
categorization which has been carried out by the KEA
without any provision for the same, either in the brochure or
-
in the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to
Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions
Rules, 2006 ('2006 Rules' for short), which have been made
specifically applicable to the selection by the brochure in
question. The petitioners have lost their opportunity for
admission to NRI Quota Seats for which they are eligible.
The representations have been submitted before the KEA in
this regard which was not considered by the KEA.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contend that the petitioner being permitted to enter options
in the NRI Quota to all available NRI Category Seats. The
refusal to consider his options to those seats which are
specifically notified as NRI seats in the mop-up round is
illegal and unsustainable. It is further contended that the
de-categorisation of the NRI Quota Seats as Management
Seats have not been notified to the eligible candidates in the
KEA web portal and that this vitiates the mop-up round of
counselling. It is contended that in the absence of any
provision in the 2006 Rules for converting of NRI Seats to
-
Management Seats or any such power reserved to the KEA
in the brochure, the said procedure was wholly illegal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that non-consideration of petitioner's
representation by respondent before allotment of seats in
mop-up round of PG-NEET counselling is arbitrary. Petitioner
is eligible to allotment of the PG-Medical seats under the NRI
category. Documents submitted by the petitioner were
scrutinized and verified by the KEA and satisfied with the
credential of the petitioners, they were permitted to
participate in mop-up round of counselling under NRI
category.
5. It is further contended that the KEA has not
allotted the vacant NRI category seats of the first and
second round to candidates under the NRI category in the
mop-up counseling, the said action of KEA is arbitrary and
illegal. KEA has not de-categorized the counseling process
and allotment of seats is done in terms of the reservation
policy for third mop-up round of counseling. Hence, actions
-
of the KEA is arbitrary and illegal. In terms of the
Notification issued by KEA, 100 of vacant seats under NRI
category have remained vacant after first and second round
of counseling and that the petitioner is eligible to participate
in the third round of counseling and select such vacant
seats. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of
permission for allotment of NRI category seats in the third
round of counseling is praying for issue of appropriate
directions to the authorities. The action of KEA is arbitrary
and illegal. The act of the KEA will affect the career of the
petitioner and will result in loosing opportunities. KEA ought
to have allotted the said vacant seats to the petitioner in
order of preference in the option list entered by the
petitioner.
6. Statement of objections is placed on record in
W.P.No.2989/2025 by the second respondent - KEA stating
that the petitioner whose NEET All India Ranking is 177251
had become eligible to participate in the counselling only
after the MCC lowered the percentile of eligibility in NEET to
15% on 04.01.2025. It is contended that on becoming
-
eligible due to lowering of the eligibility criteria he got his
documents verified on 18.01.2025 for appearance in the
mop-up round of counselling. It is contended that there
were 431 NRI seats available for allotment where the
counselling process started. But the total number of
students registered under the NRI category in the first
instance was only 328. In the first and second round of
counselling, a total of 184 NRI seats were filled up and the
rest of the seats remained vacant. Therefore, as
contemplated in Section 9 of the Karnataka Selection of
Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulations of
Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, the unfilled
seats were de-categorised as Management Quota Seats and
offered for allotment in the second round itself.
7. It is further submitted that the second round of
counselling was held between 17.12.2024 and 20.12.2024
and it was only thereafter that the writ petitioner became
eligible due to reduction of the eligibility percentile to 15%
as notified by the MCC on 06.01.2025. The mop-up round
-
option entry was held between 20.01.2025 and 23.01.2025.
In the seat Matrix, there were 6 cancelled NRI seats were
included and offered for NRI students who have taken the
cancelled seats in the mop-up round of counselling. It is
submitted that the petitioner was not allotted any seat only
on account of his low ranking.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the second respondent that the de-categorised seats
have all been taken by persons having higher marks and
ranks than the Writ Petitioners and that the Writ Petitioners
who got eligibility to apply for the NRI Seats only pursuant
to the Notification dated 15.01.2025, long after the de-
categorisation, cannot raise any contentions in that regard.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Maha. P and another v.
State of Kerala reported in (2022) 18 SCC 63, has
recognized the conversion of NRI seat owing to non-
availability of students.
-
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and considered the contentions advanced.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the NRI seats stand de-categorized and converted as
Management Seats which has defeated his rights. But we
notice that the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in
the selection has occurred only by lowering of the eligibility
of percentile by the decision of the MCC dated 04.01.2025
which was notified on 06.01.2025. The petitioners submitted
their application and credentials only on 18.01.2025. By
that time, admittedly, the NRI seats stood de-categorized
and offered as Management Seats.
12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
seeks to contend that the de-categorization is not supported
by any provision in the brochure or the Rules, we are of the
opinion that the writ petitioner who came into the picture for
the first time pursuant to Notification dated 15.01.2025
cannot be heard to contend that the de-categorization which
occurred even before the eligibility of the petitioner, was
illegal. Since the de-categorisation had already occurred
-
when the petitioners' eligibility arose, and since the mop-up
round was held only for the de-categorised seats, the
petitioners cannot raise these contentions. It is further
contended that no person who has a lower rank than the
writ petitioner has been offered allotment in the
management quota seats. In the above circumstances, we
are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has no locus-standi
to challenge the allotments at this juncture without any of
the candidates likely to be affected by the orders as sought
for by him on the party array.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that the prayers are sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot
be granted. The writ petitions, therefore fail. However, we
also feel it appropriate to issue directions to the KEA and the
State Government for future guidance.
14. In the result:-
(i) The writ petitions are disposed of.
(ii) It is appropriate to direct the KEA to
include the specific provisions as to de-
categorisation of seats, in the official
-
brochure and to publicise such de-
categorisation if any, when it occurs, in
future selections, so that the participants in
the counselling process will be well aware
of such actions of the KEA well in advance.
(iii) The State Government as well as the
Director of Medical Education are also
directed to look into the said issues as
stated above and to issue necessary
instructions while the brochures are being
prepared by the KEA in future.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
