Writ Petition No. 4424 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 4424 OF 2025 (EDN-MED ADM) BETWEEN: DR. SHUBHASHREE D/O S. DAMARAI SELVAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 101, MANASA APARTMENTS, 13 CROSS ROAD, BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. (BY SRI. SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD BANGALORE-560 012. 2. VYDHEHI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, VIJAYANAGAR, NALLURHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 066. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 3. 4. 5. 6. AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL PRASANNAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 110. DR. SUDARSHAN S/O V.L. BHAVIKATTI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT H NO.18-4-95/35, HAQ COLONY, NEAR JANATA SCHOOL, CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR-585 401. STATE OF KARNATAKA MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 077, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. K. GURUDHATTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOT PETITIONER AN MD PEDIATRICS SEAT AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, BANALORE, AS SHE IS LEGALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME AS PER THE MOP-UP ROUND CRITERIA STATED IN THE JUDGMENT BY THE HON'BLE COURT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed seeking the following substantial reliefs: "a. Allot petitioner an MD Pediatrics seat at Akash Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore, as she is legally eligible for the same as per the Mop-Up Round criteria stated in the judgment by the Hon'ble Court. b. To Cancel the allotment of the Post Graduate medical seat, MD Paedeatrics SCG seat, wrongly allotted in violation of the provision of the brochure in the MOP-UP round of KEA counseling." 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.5 & 6 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 3 and 4 respectively. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that she was a participant in the NEET-PG examination for the year 2024-2025 and that she had secured a rank 45484. It is contended that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 she had participated in the first round of counselling and had been allotted a seat in respondent No.2-Institution for MS ENT. However, she wanted to better her prospects and had, therefore, participated in the second round of counselling and was allotted MS General Surgery in respondent No.2- Institution. It is submitted that admission order was issued, but she was not granted admission. She had approached the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) and made a representation pointing out that she had not been granted admission in view of the fact that the seat matrix shown by the KEA as 20 seats in MS General Surgery at respondent No.2- Institution, while as a matter of fact permission was granted by National Medical Council (NMC) only for 18 seats. It is contended that all the candidates, who had opted MS General Surgery in respondent No.2-Institution, were permitted to participate in the mop-up round of counselling. The petitioner had participated in the mop-up round and had opted MS General Surgery at Vydhehi Medical College and Research Centre and also MD Pediatrics in Akash Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. It is submitted that when the provisional allotment after mop-up round was announced, respondent No.4, who has lower rank of 50631, had been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 granted admission for Pediatrics in respondent No.3-College, while the petitioner name did not figure in the provisional allotment list. She had immediately submitted a representation before the KEA pointing out that she had been permitted to participate in the mop-up round, but had not been granted admission to a course which was opted by her even though a person with a lower rank had been granted admission. On these grounds, she seeks the reliefs. 4. A statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 specifically states that the petitioner had appeared for the first round of PG counselling and was allotted a seat in ENT at Vydhehi Institute of Medical Sciences under the SCG category. After the allotment, she had exercised choice-3 which means that she is not happy with the allotted seat and she is agreeable to surrender the seat and move on to the next round. The seat so allotted to her in the first round, therefore, stood surrendered and she participated in the second round. Since she had been granted a seat in MS General Surgery in the second round, the only option open to her was to join the seat unless the seat stood cancelled. It is submitted that respondent No.2-Institution having specifically stated that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 petitioner is a person who has the merit to be admitted as against a vacancy in MS General Surgery as specifically permitted by the NMC, the petitioner would not have been eligible to participate in the mop-up round of counselling at all. It is submitted that it was only due to the confusion with regard to the number of seats against which admission had been permitted to be made in respondent No.2-Institution that the problem arose and since it is now clear that the petitioner is a person who could have been accommodated against one of the available 18 seats in MS General Surgery in respondent No.2- institution itself, there is no question of her having participated in the mop-up round or having taken a seat in the said mop-up round. It is submitted that pursuant to the allotment in the second round of counseling, the petitioner had paid the fee and had taken admission in respondent No.2-Institution. 5. A Statement of objections has been placed on record by respondent No.2-Institution pointing out that respondent No.2 had been permitted to make admission only to 18 seats in MS General Surgery and that this aspect had been brought to the notice of the KEA, by which time the seat matrix in the first round had already been published. It is pointed out - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 that the institution has specifically informed the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) that the petitioner is one of the persons who could be accommodated in the available seats which had due approval by the NMC. It is submitted that this aspect was informed to the DME as early as on 22.11.2024 and that as such, there is no question of the petitioner, who had been allotted a seat in the second round of counseling, being permitted to participate in the mop-up round at all. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been admitted to MS General Surgery in respondent No.2-institution and is continuing her studies there. 6. Learned AGA has also placed a memo on record with documents and supports the contentions of the KEA. It is submitted that a letter had been received from respondent No.2-Institution on 24.09.2024 stating that 20 seats were permitted for the MS General Surgery along with the letter of permission issued by the NMC allowing increase from 8 seats to 20 seats. It is submitted that on the basis of the said letter, the DME had addressed respondent No.1 showing the number of seats at respondent No.2-Institution in MS General Surgery as 20. Further, the seat matrix was prepared taking note of the 20 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 seats as informed by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the DME had requested the NMC to clarify the number of seats and NMC had forwarded the details of the approved seats wherein only 18 seats were sanctioned to respondent No.2-Institution. The DME had addressed the KEA and on the basis of the seat matrix published, it was found that respondent No.2 had been granted permission to make admission only against 18 seats in MS General Surgery. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been already granted admission in MS General Surgery in respondent No.2-Institution in the second round and she could not have participated in the third round of counselling. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner's admission was confirmed only in February, 2025. It is contended that having been permitted to participate in the mop-up round of counseling, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of such participation by permitting her to join the course opted by her, that is, MD Pediatrics in respondent No.3-Institution. It is contended that respondent No.4, who has a lower rank has been allotted the said seat for which the petitioner had submitted an option. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had participated in the first round of counseling and had been allotted a seat. However, she opted choice No.3 as provided in the prospectus/brochure and surrendered the seat and participated in the second round. She had been allotted the seat in respondent No.2-Institution in MS General Surgery as against one of the permitted seats. As such, there was no question of her participation in the mop-up round or being allotted a seat in that round at all. Since the admissions brochure specifically states that a person who gets an opted seat in the second round and who pays the fees and joins the seat cannot advance to the next round of counseling at all and since it is not disputed that the petitioner had been allotted a seat in MS General Surgery in respondent No.2-College, in the second round of counseling and had paid the fees and taken the said admission, she would not have been eligible to participate in the mop-up round of counseling. The mere fact that the KEA by mistake permitted her to participate in the mop-up round cannot give her any right to contend that she must be allotted seats which were available in the mop-up round to persons who were eligible to participate in such round. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10276-DB WP No. 4424 of 2025 9. In view of the fact that respondent No.2-college submits that the petitioner has already been granted admission, we are of the opinion that no further orders are required in this writ petition.
Decision
10. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that the NMC is free to make verification with regard to the number of seats which were permitted in respondent No.2-Institution and the communications which have been issued to the DME and all contentions in that regard are left open. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6