Shahsad P. v. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-12-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHAHSAD P.
SHABEER ALI K.
NIHLA P.P.

Respondents

Medical Counselling Committee (MCC)
National Medical Commission (NMC)
Union of India
Government of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)
• Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmi
• Sri Brijesh Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Jayashankar V. Nair, CGC
• Sri V. Manu
• Sri Titus Mani Vettom
• Sri P. Vijayakumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners Shahsad P., Shabeer Ali K., and Nihla P.P. approached the Kerala High Court challenging delays in completing the first allotment for the 85% state quota in states other than Kerala, Rajasthan and Haryana, which affects their eligibility for the 15% All India Quota (AIQ). They contend that Ext. P5, issued by the Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) in Oct 2020, set strict dates for the 1st and 2nd AIQ allotments (Nov 5 and Nov 27, 2020) but many states failed to complete their 1st allotment before the 2nd AIQ allotment, or processed late (e.g., Bihar, Jharkhand). Although Kerala completed its 1st allotment by Nov 26, 2020, most states did not, risking the exclusion of students who opted for 1st/2nd AIQ allotments and would otherwise join state seats. The petitioners seek a third/mop-up allotment to ensure meritorious NEET (UG) 2020 candidates can participate in the 15% AIQ, arguing it aligns with Supreme Court directions for common counselling and to minimize seat reversion. The respondents counter that a third round is not contemplated and rely on Neelu Arora v. Union of India and interim orders in related cases, asserting adherence to the scheme. The court held that a third counselling is not envisaged, citing Neelu Arora and interim orders, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing compliance with Supreme Court directives to limit seat revert.”,

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the delay in completing the 1st allotment for the 85% state quota seats in other states results in denial of opportunity for admission in the 15% AIQ. They rely on Ext. P5 (the MCC schedule) and contend that a third/mop-up counselling is necessary to ensure meritorious NEET (UG) candidates get an effective chance in AIQ. They invoked Supreme Court directions on common counselling (paras. 23.1–23.6) and urged that delays in other states necessitate a mop-up round to avoid disproportionate seat revert and to preserve merit-based allocation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that a third round of counselling is not envisaged under the existing scheme and that Supreme Court judgments (Neelu Arora and interim orders in related cases) do not permit a mop-up. They contended that MCC’s schedule and the 15% AIQ process must proceed as per established directions to avoid destabilizing the allotment process and undermining the merit-based allocation of AIQ seats.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Assn. of Private Medical & Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh	(2017) 8 SCC 638	Positive	Cited to support the view that the intention behind the Supreme Court's common counselling directions is to minimize seat revert to the state quota; emphasizes no third round to be envisaged so as to preserve merit in AIQ allocations.
Neelu Arora (Ms) and Another v. Union of India and Others	(2003) 3 SCC 366	Positive	Cited for the principle that a third round of counselling is not contemplated under the scheme; used to justify not permitting mop-up counselling.
W.P.(C) No.1313/2020 (Supreme Court)	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P9; Supreme Court judgment cited to show directions and context; not treated as binding authority in the Kerala High Court’s reasoning.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**SHAHSAD P., AGED 20 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.SOUJA P.P., SHAHSAD MANZIL,**| ||**CHERAKARA BY-PASS JUNCTION, KOVILAKAMKUNDU,**| ||**MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**SHABEER ALI K., AGED 20 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.ABDUL SALEEM K., KALANGADAN HOUSE, ALAKKAPARAMB,**| ||**P.O.MOONNIYUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 311.**| |**3**|**NIHLA P.P., AGED 19 YEARS,**| ||**D/O.BASEER P.P., 'IHASAN', AGRASALA,**| ||**PALLIKKAL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 634.**| - **BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE(MCC),**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH**| ||**SERVICES (DGHS), MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY**| ||**WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 011.**| |**2**|**NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,**| ||**POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE-1,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 077,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**3**|**UNION OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,**| ||**NEW DELHI -110 011.**| |**4**|**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| ||**REP. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036.**| **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **2** **BY ADVS. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC SRI.V.MANU, SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM,SC,NMC, SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioners appeared in the National Entrance cum Eligibility Test (NEET) (UG) 2020 and secured 610, 608 and 606 marks out of 720. Their grievance is as against the delay in completing the 1[st] allotment for admission to the 85% seats in undergraduate course in medicine allocated as the state quota in different States other than Kerala, Rajastan and Haryana, on account of which they will be denied opportunity for admission against the 15% seats in the All India Quota.** **2. Petitioners submit that Ext.P5 schedule for online counselling for All India Quota was published by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) in October, 2020, according to which, the 1[st] and 2[nd] allotment were scheduled to be held on 05.11.2020 and 27.11.2020** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** ## **4** **respectively; but many States failed to complete their 1[st] allotment before the completion of the 2[nd] allotment of the All India Quota. It is stated that in the State of Bihar, registration for the 1[st] allotment commenced only on 29.11.2020 and the processing of seat allotment commenced only on 04.12.2020 i.e., after the finalisation of the 2[nd] allotment towards 15% All India Quota as per Ext.P5. It is stated that similar is the case with State of Jharkhand also. Petitioners pointed out that in the State of Kerala, the 1[st] allotment was completed on 26.11.2020 in accordance with Ext.P5. But in most of the states the allotment to the State quota is not complete. Petitioners claim that the students, who opted for 1[st] and 2[nd] allotment in All India Quota and who would be joining the State seats would be excluded and a fresh allotment** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **5** **is to be made to enable the eligible candidates like the petitioners, who secured high marks in NEET (UG) to avail an effective opportunity to participate in the admission process towards 15% All India Quota. It is stated that large number of seats would be reverted to the State quota this year defeating the very intention of the Honourable Supreme Court to ensure that very few seats are reverted to the State quota and that the All India Quota seats are filled by students from All India merit list only. Petitioners point out that the last candidate who got allotment in the All India quota in general merit is having 611 marks, as explained in Ext.P6. Petitioners who scored 606 to 610 marks therefore submit that they have got every chance for admission in case the allotments were made in accordance with** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **6** **Ext P5. It is stated that on account of failure to reckon those students who are likeli to join the State seats while finalising the 2[nd] round of allotment towards 15% quota a large number of meritorious students like the petitioners who seek admission in the 15% All India Quota would be denied their opportunity.** **3. Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on the order passed by the Apex Court on 09.05.2017 reported in** _**Assn. of Private Medical & Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh**_ **[(2017)8 SCC 638], argued that the intention behind the directions issued by the Apex Court regarding the common counselling procedure provided in the paragraphs 23.1 to 23.6 are to see that minimum number of seats are reverted to state** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **7** **quota and that in order to ensure the same a 3[rd] allotment or a mop-up allotment is to be conducted for admission to the All India Quota, in view of the delay caused in completing the counselling in other States and in that event the petitioners would get an opportunity to participate in the same. It is also stated that petitioners have submitted a representation before the Government of India requesting for the same and that no decision is taken on it so far.** **4. On the other hand, Sri.Titus Mani, the learned Standing Counsel for the National Medical Commission. relying on the judgment in** _**Neelu Arora (Ms) and Another v. Union of India and Others**_ **[(2003)3 SCC 366] argued that a third round of counselling is not intended or permitted by the Apex Court, for admission to All India Quota. It is pointed** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **8** **out that a similar claim for a third round of counselling pointing out the loss for meritorious students, was rejected by the** **Apex court. Relevant portion of the judgment in** _**Neelu Arora's case (supra) read**_ **as follows:** _**“5. xxx The second round of allotment by personal appearance will be for candidates who were allotted a seat in the first round and who wish to change their allotted college/course and wish to join the same against vacancies arising due to non-joining of the candidates allotted in the first round of personal appearance and for candidates on the merit list who could not be considered for allotment in the first round. It is thus the second round of counselling by personal appearance was to be concluded by a particular date.**_ _**6. When a detailed scheme has been framed through orders of this Court and the manner in which it has to be worked out is also indicated therein, we do not think that if in a particular year there is any shortfall or a certain number of seats are not filled up, the same should be done by adopting one more round of counselling because there is no scope for the third round of counselling under the Scheme. xxxx”**_ **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **9** **5. The learned counsel argued that there is no scope for a third round of counselling or mop-up counselling. It is also pointed out that the Apex Court has not so far permitted a third round of counselling.** **6. The learned CGC, Sri.Jayashankar, also submitted that Government cannot take any decision contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court.** **7. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that when the students from Rajastan approached the Apex Court pointing out the delay caused in the counselling in the 85% quota in other States, the Apex Court as per Ext.P9 judgment directed that the petitioners have to approach the High Court of the State and that the writ petition was filed accordingly before this Court.** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **10** **8. Having considered the contentions advanced by both sides, it is seen that a third counselling/allotment or a mop-up counselling is not envisaged for admission to All India Quota in any of the judgments of the Apex Court.** **In view of the directions in the judgments in** _**Neelu Arora's case (supra)**_ **as well as the interim orders passed in** _**Assn. of**_ _**Private Medical & Dental Colleges of**_ _**Chhattisgarh's**_ **case** _**(Supra)**_ **, writ petition** **is dismissed.** **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** **ww** **WP(C).No.27304 OF 2020(K)** **11** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEET (UG)-2020 SCORE CARD OF THE PETITIONER 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEET (UG)-2020 SCORE CARD OF THE PETITIONER 2ND PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEET (UG)-2020 SCORE CARD OF THE PETITIONER 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MODIFIED SCHEME PUBLISHED BY THE MCC.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR ONLINE COUNSELLING (ALLOTMENT) PROCESS FOR THE NEET 15% AIQ.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL SEAT ALLOTMENT 2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER IN THE WEBSITE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER THE HEADING "INTERACT WITH THE PRIME MINISTER" AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN HINDU DATED 4/12/2020.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/12/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.1313/2020 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.**