Title: Dr. Pratheeksha Vs. The National Board of Examination.
Decided On: September 11, 2023.
W.P.No. 26731 of 2023.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Seshasayee.
Facts:
The petitioner herein had applied for NEET examination for Medicine PG course for the academic year 2023-2024, wherein she had indicated her category as OBC. The cut-off mark prescribed for OBC category is 257, whereas the petitioner has scored 269 marks. However, while registering for counselling, the petitioner has given her category as General, for which the cut-off mark is 291. Now the petitioner seeks an issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the NEET PG 2023 Counselling under the OBC category, as per the order passed in a similar matter in W.P.No.13387 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023, after all rounds of counselling.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
Indisputably the petitioner is at fault. It is her lapse. And none of the respondents before the Court have breached the rule of law in the context, of the procedure prescribed for medical admission. The Court acknowledges its sympathy for the petitioner, but sympathy cannot replace the Constitutional consciousness which the Court is expected to possess and exhibit. It needs to be underscored that even the Courts are bound by the Rule of Law. Therefore, unless this Court considers that it has powers to roam free beyond the bounds of the rule of law, it cannot create a non-existing space for issuing any directions. If this is ignored, then we will have a dual system, one by the rule of law for some, and another, the rule of the Court, for a few. That would be an allergen that ill-suits the health of Constitutional governance. When a procedure is designed, granting equal opportunities to the equally placed, adjusted with necessary reservations, the Court cannot disturb the prospects of anyone who has played the game as per the rule, lest there will be a premium for those who ignore the rules of the game. And it will create a class in itself a class of preferred candidates because the Court has given them a wild card entry.
The Court held that this court therefore, can only suggest to the respondents that, subject to the approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a window may be opened for all those candidates, who might have missed an opportunity due to certain inadvertent faults such as the one occasioned to the petitioner, grant them an opportunity to correct them after the conclusion of the stray-counselling, and to prepare a rank list for these candidates, and to try accommodating whoever who is willing to join the unfilled up seats. Instead of letting some medical seats lapse, an attempt may be made to fill them up.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that playing within the bounds of law and summoning its sense of equity and justice, the Court merely makes a suggestion to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner after all the rounds of counselling, if some seats still remain vacant, but only after obtaining necessary approval for the same from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
