Give state quota seat to MD (Psychiatry) aspirant, says Punjab & Haryana HC
Was allotted seat in GMCH-32, but later denied admission
Navya Singh had the rank. She secured the seat and even deposited the fee. Yet, the candidate allotted MD (Psychiatry) at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, was told she could not pursue the course because her admission was the result of an “inadvertent error”. The UT and other authorities concerned took the stand that the seat had been shown vacant due to a technical lapse. As such, the admission granted to her could not be honoured.
Taking up the candidate’s petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor has now directed that a state quota seat that later fell vacant due to resignation of another candidate “shall not be included in the stray round and that the petitioner shall be adjusted against such vacant seat.”
Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, counsel Nitin Bhanwala told the Bench that she had secured the seat through counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee on the basis of her NEET-PG merit. The problem arose because a candidate from an earlier round reported for joining, but her reporting was not updated online. The system showed the seat as vacant. The petitioner was allotted the seat in the next round. When the discrepancy surfaced, the college refused to let her continue, terming the allotment an administrative mistake.
But the high court ruled that the error was not hers. “From the material placed on record, it is apparent that the petitioner acted with due diligence, and on the basis of her merit, was allotted a seat… There is no apparent fault attributable to her,” the Bench observed.
“If the petitioner is not permitted to pursue her course, she would suffer irreparable loss,” the court noted, especially since she would become ineligible for further rounds of counselling.
When informed that a state quota seat had since fallen vacant, but was proposed to be diverted to the stray round, the Bench noted that the candidate who might get admission in the stray round was “quite likely to be lower in merit than the petitioner.”
The Bench observed that the petitioner had already been offered admission and had deposited the fee. Neither her eligibility, nor her merit position, was in question. She was otherwise higher in rank. “We find that equity clearly stands in favour of the petitioner. Once that is so, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to ensure that the state quota seat vacated on account of resignation should not be included in the stray round and that the petitioner should be adjusted against such vacant seat,” the Judges asserted.
