Supreme Court Refuses Special Stray Round for NEET-PG 2021 Vacant Seats: Dr. Astha Goel & Ors. vs. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors. (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: June 10, 2022
Citation: Not provided in the source.
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can the pursuit of filling every vacant seat in medical postgraduate courses justify extending the admission process beyond the prescribed schedule? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a batch of petitions concerning the NEET-PG 2021 admissions. The core issue was whether the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) should be directed to conduct a special stray round of counseling to fill the 1456 seats that remained vacant after the conclusion of all scheduled rounds. The Court, in its judgment, declined to order such an additional round, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the admission schedule to maintain the integrity of medical education. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the NEET-PG 2021 admissions process. Initially, around 40,000 seats were available, with 92,000 candidates eligible. The eligibility criteria were later relaxed, adding approximately 25,000 more candidates. The NEET-PG examination was held on September 11, 2021, and the results were declared on September 28, 2021. The counseling process was modified to include four rounds for both All India Quota (AIQ) and State Quotas, with no seats reverting to the states. These rounds were AIQ Round 1, AIQ Round 2, AIQ Mop-up Round, and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.

The counseling rounds took place as follows: Round 1 on January 12, 2022, Round 2 on February 5, 2022, the Mop-Up Round on April 14, 2022, and the Stray Vacancy Round from April 28, 2022, to May 7, 2022. Despite these rounds, 1456 seats remained vacant. The petitioners, who had participated in the previous rounds, sought a special stray round of counseling to fill these remaining seats. The petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 393 of 2022 also asked for the vacant seats to be reverted to the State Quotas. The petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions had approached the High Courts with similar prayers, which were dismissed, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by various senior advocates and counsels, argued for a special stray round of counseling, emphasizing the following points:

• 
  Wastage of Seats: The 1456 vacant seats represent a significant loss, impacting both the colleges and the aspiring candidates.
• 
  Readiness to Accept Seats: The petitioners were willing to accept admission to any of the remaining vacant seats.
• 
  Precedent of Additional Rounds: Due to the addition of seats and cancellation of the Mop-Up round, additional rounds of counseling had already been conducted, making the four-round limit irrelevant.
• 
  Clinical Seats Vacancy: Many of the vacant seats were in clinical courses, not just paramedical ones, contrary to the respondents’ claims.
• 
  Duty to Fill Vacancies: The vacant seats resulted from non-joining, resignations, and candidates not reporting, thus it was the duty of the respondents to fill them from the remaining candidates.
• 
  MCC’s Duty: The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) should have conducted an additional round of counseling, given the large number of vacant seats.
• 
  Unjustified Software Closure: Closing the software before filling all seats was not justifiable, and a mechanism could be developed to fill the vacant seats.
• 
  Refund of Amount: The fact that the candidates had been refunded their security deposit was not a valid reason to deny an additional round of counseling.
• 
  Separate Candidate Pools: The candidates for NEET-PG 2021 and 2022 were different, and many 2021 candidates did not register for 2022, hoping to secure a seat in the 2021 counseling.
• 
  Merit-Based Competition: The 1456 seats should be open for a merit-based competition among the NEET-PG 2021 candidates only.
• 
  No Impact on Education: Admitting the petitioners now would not affect their education, as classes had started much before the first counseling batch, and students were admitted even after three Mop-Up Rounds.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and counsel for the MCC, vehemently opposed the petitioners’ prayer, arguing:

• 
  Completion of Counseling Rounds: Four rounds of counseling each for AIQ and State Quotas had been conducted, and only 1456 seats remained vacant out of 40,000.
• 
  Nature of Vacant Seats: Approximately 1100 of the vacant seats were in non-clinical courses, which are typically rejected by candidates.
• 
  Recurring Vacancies: These seats remain vacant every year due to a lack of interest in non-clinical courses and high fees in private colleges.
• 
  No Endless Counseling: There cannot be an endless exercise of conducting counseling until all seats are filled.
• 
  Compromise on Medical Education: Given that the PG course is a three-year course, and more than one year has passed, there cannot be any compromise on medical education.
• 
  Commencement of NEET-PG 2022: The admission process for NEET-PG 2022 had already begun, with counseling scheduled for July 2022, making an additional round for 2021 impractical.
• 
  Closure of Software: The software mechanism had been closed, and security deposits had been refunded to eligible candidates.
• 
  Reliance on Precedent: The respondents relied on the decision in Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38, which held that vacant seats are not a ground for extending the time schedule.
• 
  Mid-Term Admissions: The respondents cited Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370, which held that students cannot be admitted mid-term.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a Special Stray Round of counseling for filling up the remaining vacant seats of NEET-PG-2021?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370:* The Court relied on this case to reiterate that students cannot be admitted mid-term, as it would go against the spirit of medical education statutes. The Court emphasized that even if seats remain unfilled, it cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions.
• Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38:* The Court cited this case to support its decision that merely because seats are vacant, it is not a ground to grant an extension of time or further opportunity to fill those seats. The Court stressed that the schedule must be followed, and any violation would defeat the purpose of a strict time schedule.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the medical admission process and the importance of adhering to the prescribed schedule. The Court prioritized the quality of medical education and public health over filling every vacant seat. Several factors weighed heavily in the Court’s decision:

The Court emphasized that the admission process for NEET-PG 2021 was already delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and various litigations. The Court noted that after conducting eight to nine rounds of counseling, a significant number of seats, mostly in non-clinical courses, remained vacant. It also took judicial notice of the fact that many graduate doctors do not want to pursue post-graduation in non-clinical subjects, which leads to these vacancies every year.

The Court also considered that the admission process for NEET-PG 2022 had already begun, and conducting an additional round for NEET-PG 2021 would disrupt the schedule for the next academic year. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the software mechanism for NEET-PG 2021 had been closed, and security deposits had been refunded to the eligible candidates.

The Court was clear that there cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of medical education, which may ultimately affect public health.

The Court also highlighted that the process of admission cannot be endless and must end at a particular point of time.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and special leave petitions, refusing to direct the respondents to conduct a special stray round of counseling for the remaining vacant seats of NEET-PG-2021. The Court’s decision was based on several key factors:

• The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time schedule for completing the admission process. “The time schedule has to be adhered to, otherwise, ultimately, it may affect the medical education and the public health.”
• The Court acknowledged that the NEET-PG-2021 admission process was already delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and various litigations.
• The Court noted that after eight to nine rounds of counseling, a significant number of seats, mainly in non-clinical courses, remained vacant. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that many graduate doctors do not want to pursue post-graduation in non-clinical subjects.
• The Court highlighted that the admission process for NEET-PG-2022 had already begun, and conducting an additional round for NEET-PG-2021 would disrupt the schedule for the next academic year.
• The Court was also mindful of the fact that the software mechanism for NEET-PG-2021 had been closed, and security deposits had been refunded to the eligible candidates.
• The Court reiterated that there cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of medical education, which may ultimately affect public health. “There cannot be any compromise with the merits and/or quality of Medical Education, which may ultimately affect the Public Health.”
• The Court emphasized that the process of admission cannot be endless and must end at a particular point of time.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370 and Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38, which held that students cannot be admitted mid-term and that vacant seats are not a ground for extending the time schedule. “Merely because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. The schedule must be followed.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, as it was a unanimous decision by the two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of adhering to the admission schedule for medical courses.
• Vacant seats alone are not a sufficient ground to extend the admission process or conduct additional rounds of counseling.
• The quality of medical education and public health are paramount and cannot be compromised in the pursuit of filling every seat.
• The judgment sets a precedent that may discourage future petitions seeking additional rounds of counseling after the scheduled rounds are completed.
• Medical aspirants need to be aware of the strict timelines and plan their strategies accordingly.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the admission process for medical courses must adhere to the prescribed schedule, and vacant seats alone are not a sufficient ground to extend the process or conduct additional rounds of counseling. This judgment reinforces the principle that the quality of medical education and public health are paramount and cannot be compromised. There is no change in the previous position of law, as the Court relied on previous judgments like Supreet Batra and Education Promotion Society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking a special stray round of counseling for NEET-PG 2021, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the admission schedule and prioritizing the quality of medical education and public health. The Court’s decision underscores that the admission process cannot be endless and that vacant seats alone are not sufficient grounds to extend the process beyond the prescribed timelines.