Supreme Court Upholds NEET-PG Counselling Schedule, Denies Special Stray Round: Dr. Astha Goel vs. Medical Counselling Committee (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 June 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can the Supreme Court direct the Medical Counselling Committee to conduct an additional round of counselling to fill vacant seats for NEET-PG after the scheduled rounds are over? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. Several candidates who did not secure a seat in the NEET-PG 2021 counselling process sought a special stray round of counselling to fill the remaining 1456 vacant seats. The Supreme Court, however, declined to order an additional round, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the established schedule for medical admissions.

The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the NEET-PG 2021 admissions process. Approximately 40,000 seats were available, including both clinical and non-clinical seats. Initially, 92,000 candidates were eligible, but this number increased by 25,000 after the eligibility criteria were lowered on 12 May 2022.

The NEET-PG examination was conducted on 11 September 2021, and the results were declared on 28 September 2021. The counselling process was modified to include four rounds for both All India Quota (AIQ) and State Quota seats, 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 counselling rounds took place as follows: Round 1 on 12 January 2022, Round 2 on 5 February 2022, the Mop-Up Round on 14 April 2022, and the Stray Vacancy Round starting on 28 April 2022 and ending on 7 May 2022. Despite these rounds, 1456 seats remained vacant. The petitioners, who had participated in all previous rounds without securing admission, sought a special stray round to fill these remaining seats.

Timeline:

Arguments

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

• ✓ 1456 seats remained vacant, causing a loss to both colleges and candidates.
• ✓ The petitioners were ready to accept admission to any of the vacant seats.
• ✓ Due to the addition of seats, additional counselling rounds were conducted, so the four-round limit should not be a barrier.
• ✓ Many vacant seats were clinical, not just paramedical.
• ✓ Vacancies arose due to non-joining, resignations, and candidates not reporting, which should have been filled from the remaining candidates.
• ✓ The Medical Counselling Committee should have conducted an additional round given the large number of vacancies.
• ✓ Closing the software before filling all seats was not justified, and a mechanism could be developed to fill the remaining seats.
• ✓ Refunding the security deposit should not prevent an additional round of counselling.
• ✓ NEET-PG 2021 and 2022 candidates are different, and many 2021 candidates did not register for 2022 hoping to get a seat in the counselling process.
• ✓ The 1456 seats should be open only to NEET-PG 2021 candidates.
• ✓ Admitting candidates now would not affect their education, as classes had started much before the first counselling batch, and admissions had been given even as late as 7 May 2022.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and counsel for the Medical Counselling Committee, opposed the special stray round, arguing that:

• ✓ Four rounds of counselling for both AIQ and State Quotas had already been conducted, totaling nine rounds, and only 1456 seats remained vacant out of 40,000.
• ✓ Most of the vacant seats were for non-clinical courses or in private colleges with high fees, which usually remain vacant every year.
• ✓ An additional round would not fill these seats, and there cannot be an endless exercise of conducting counselling rounds.
• ✓ The PG courses are three-year courses, and more than one year had already passed. There could be no compromise with medical education.
• ✓ The admission process for NEET-PG 2022 had already begun, with counselling scheduled for July 2022.
• ✓ The software mechanism had been closed, and security deposits had been refunded.
• ✓ The Supreme Court had previously held in Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38 that merely because seats are vacant is not a ground to extend the schedule.
• ✓ The Supreme Court had also held in Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370 that students cannot be admitted mid-term.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• ✓ Whether a special stray round of counselling should be conducted to fill the remaining vacant seats of NEET-PG 2021 after the completion of the scheduled counselling rounds.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that mid-term admissions are not permissible, and that the counselling scheme should not be altered due to some seats remaining vacant.
• ✓ Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the mere fact that seats are vacant is not a valid ground to extend the schedule or conduct additional counselling rounds.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the admission schedule for medical education, the nature of the vacant seats, and the practical difficulties in conducting additional rounds of counselling. The Court emphasized that the admission process must have a definitive end to avoid compromising the quality of medical education and public health.

The Court also took into consideration the fact that most of the vacant seats were in non-clinical courses, which are often not preferred by candidates. The Court noted that the admission process for NEET-PG 2022 had already commenced, making it impractical to conduct an additional round for NEET-PG 2021.

The Court also relied on previous judgments that emphasized the need to adhere to the schedule and avoid mid-term admissions.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, refusing to direct the Medical Counselling Committee to conduct a special stray round of counselling for the remaining vacant seats of NEET-PG 2021. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time schedule for medical admissions and noted that the majority of the vacant seats were for non-clinical courses, which are often not preferred by candidates.

The Court quoted from Supreet Batra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 370 stating,
“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.”

The Court also referred to Education Promotion Society for India and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 7 SCC 38, noting,
“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.”

The Court further observed,
“The process of admission and that too in the medical education cannot be endless. It must end at a particular point of time.”

The Court reasoned that allowing a special stray round would compromise the integrity of the admission process, potentially affect the quality of medical education, and disrupt the schedule for NEET-PG 2022 admissions.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the admission schedule for medical courses.
• ✓ Mid-term admissions are generally not permissible, even if seats remain vacant.
• ✓ The fact that seats remain vacant, particularly in non-clinical courses, is not a sufficient reason to extend the admission schedule or conduct additional rounds of counselling.
• ✓ The decision highlights the need for a balance between filling all seats and maintaining the integrity of the admission process.
• ✓ Future cases involving similar issues will likely be decided based on the principles established in this judgment.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the admission schedule for medical courses must be strictly adhered to, and the mere fact that seats remain vacant, particularly in non-clinical courses, is not a valid ground to extend the schedule or conduct additional rounds of counselling. This judgment reinforces the principles established in previous cases such as Supreet Batra and Education Promotion Society for India, highlighting the need to balance the goal of filling all seats with the need to maintain the integrity of the admission process and the quality of medical education. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking a special stray round of counselling for NEET-PG 2021, upholding the decision of the Medical Counselling Committee and the Union of India. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established schedule for medical admissions and the need to maintain the quality of medical education. The judgment reinforces the principles that mid-term admissions are not permissible and that the mere fact that seats remain vacant is not a sufficient ground to extend the admission schedule.