Discrepancy in submission of documents, Rajasthan High Court orders to accept based on the merit of the candidate

A Single Judge Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court observed that the merit of a candidate is a crucial factor in determining eligibility for admission. The Court held that the inability of a candidate to provide documents due to reasons beyond the candidate’s control should be examined by the authorities and the factors and circumstances leading to non-submission should be taken into account, but that the merit still comes first. when it comes to determining suitability.

Background

The petitioners having the requisite eligibility appeared for NEET-UG, exam, 2024 conducted by the respondents. After general counseling, the respondents informed the candidates on 23.10.2024 that there was an allotment procedure for Stray Vacancy Round for MBBS and BDS courses. The petitioners were summoned for the document verification phase which took place on 28.10.2024.

The petitioners have submitted their Class X and XII mark sheets, domicile certificate, transfer certificate and caste certificate etc. in the Stray Vacancy Round. They were asked to submit an affidavit as the subject ‘Biology’ was not mentioned in their mark sheets of Class XI. The petitioners attributed this to promotions from Class XI to Class XII during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also stated that the central and state government had directed to apply this to all students of that academic year.

The petitioner filed an affidavit (Annexure 10) on 28.10.2024 along with the bond for MBBS/BDS allotment.

As per the revised Provisional List of Combined Merits, the petitioner’s name was serialized. 3647 and later in the Provisional Combined Allotment List for University Allotment, her name was excluded from the list. The applicant sent an email to the respondents on 30.10.2024 and 31.10.2024, but no response was received.

Aggrieved, the petitioner along with others with similar grievances approached the court.

Claims of the parties:

Counsel for the applicant submitted that though the applicant was a meritorious candidate, preference was given to respondents 5 and 6 to exclude the applicant from the list. The counsel termed it violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and referred to the order in Yashpreet Dhruv Vs. the Chairman, National Medical Council & Ors.

It has been submitted that Applicants were not given an opportunity to submit the certificate in the expected/prescribed format.

Relying on Asha Vs. Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences & OrsThe counsel submitted that since the petitioner was meritorious, this should have been an exclusive criterion for the distribution of seats.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent stated that the applicants were timely informed that it was mandatory to submit the Class

Relying on a supplementary affidavit of the Chairman of the Counseling Board showing that only 878 out of the total 920 candidates cleared the stage of document verification, the counsel stated that the petitioners were not entitled to allotment of the seats at that time . Lost vacancy round. Moreover, out of 11 candidates, 19 had not even submitted the PhD certificates in which biology was one of their subjects^e Figure.

The counsel based his opinion on the statements of Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Center Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Premsukh Vs. Union of India and Ors., and S.Krishna Shradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Findings of the Court:

To begin with, the Court emphasizes that candidates with good merit must be given a fair chance of admission.

The question before the Court was whether the certificate submitted by the petitioner on 31.10.2024 could be considered valid and whether it would make the petitioner eligible as he was given very less time to produce the same. Moreover, the Applicants were also more deserving than the Respondents who were preferred over the Applicants.

The court held that the document verification/Vacancy Round was conducted in haste during the holidays due to Deepawali. It was obvious that the candidates would not have been able to obtain the required certificates from their respective schools during the holidays.

The Court held that the mark sheets of Class

The Court held that the petitioners were excluded from the list merely because they were unable to furnish the required mark sheet i.e. Class , who were less meritorious than the petitioners, were assigned colleges of their preference.

The Court noted that it was beyond the control of the petitioners to submit the certificates coming from rural areas and also due to other issues as mentioned. She is of the opinion that the applicants have approached the court without adjourning this. Moreover, it was held that the respondents could not establish the rationale behind the mandatory provision for submission of Class XI mark sheet having ‘Biology’ as one of the subjects. Though the same was reflected in the Class XII mark sheet.

The court also held that it was convinced arguing that the respondents had not been given sufficient time by the petitioners to submit the documents required under the mandatory provisions.

Continue to trust Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, The Court reiterated that in determining the suitability of the candidates, Merit alone should be the criterion for admission to MBBS courses and that the rule of merit should not be circumvented at any cost.

The Court stated that in assessing a candidate, merit, unbiasedness and transparency in the selection process formed the basis of the selection/admission process.

The Bank meant Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman JEE, repeat that any violation of the rule regarding the production of evidence does not necessarily lead to rejection of the application.

Further relying on Asha Vs. Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. and Premsukh Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Court observed,

‘the merit scored by the petitioners should be the exclusive criterion for allotment of seats/colleges and in no way should the fundamental rights of the deserving petitioners be frustrated due to technical formalities and the present petitions fall under the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases in which judicial intervention is justified.’

With these observations, the Court directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners strictly based on merit and allocation to medical colleges considering the same. Moreover, the candidature of respondents 5 and 6 was rejected on the ground that they were less meritorious than the petitioners.

Case Title: Kanchan Kumawat vs. Union of India

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Joshi Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Vikash Ghosalya with Mr. Prithvi Pal Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Yash Joshi Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC Mr. MS Rghav for NTA with Mr. Vishvas Saini Mr. Sanjay Khadar for Respondent No. 5 Mr. Angad Mirdha for NMC Mr. . Abhinav Srivastava for Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, for respondent No. 6

Click here to download the order/judgment