Medical Counselling Dispute: Supreme Court Ruling on NEET-PG Admission Process

The case of Rachit Sinha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. revolves around the changes made in the medical counselling process for admission to Postgraduate medical courses in India for the year 2018-2019. The dispute arose due to a modification in the counselling procedure by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), which allowed candidates who were previously ineligible for the second round of counselling to participate. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated their rights and disrupted the fairness of the admission process.

Background of the Case

The Medical Council of India (MCI) issued the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, which defined the admission schedule for the academic year 2018-2019. As per the regulations, admissions to PG medical courses were conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-PG), with 50% of seats allocated to the All India Quota (AIQ) and the remaining 50% reserved for the State Quota.

The first round of AIQ counselling was completed on April 7, 2018, followed by the second round, which began on April 13, 2018. However, on April 9, 2018, the MCC issued a notice modifying the counselling process. The key changes were:

• Candidates who were allotted a seat in the first round but did not report were now eligible to participate in the second round.
• Candidates who joined the allotted seat but later resigned were also made eligible for the second round.

The petitioners, who had participated in the first round and were bound by the earlier rules, challenged this change, arguing that it unfairly increased competition and altered the selection dynamics mid-process.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners presented the following arguments before the Supreme Court:

• Unfair Change in Rules: The notice issued on April 9, 2018, allowed previously ineligible candidates to participate in the second round of counselling, thereby increasing competition.
• Disruption of Admission Process: The petitioners contended that changing the counselling method after it had commenced disrupted the predictability and fairness of the process.
• Forcing Resignation: Candidates who had already secured seats were forced to resign due to uncertainty caused by the new rules.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Union of India and the MCC defended the modification on the following grounds:

• Preventing Seat Blocking: The change was made to curb the practice of seat blocking, where candidates would secure AIQ seats but later resign, leading to the reversion of seats to the state quota.
• Fairness in Counselling: The MCC argued that making resigned candidates eligible for the second round ensured that seats did not go vacant.
• Action Against Manipulative Candidates: The authorities identified around 1,000 candidates involved in seat blocking and planned disciplinary action against them.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao, examined the legality of the modification and its impact on the petitioners.

“There is no infringement of any legal right of the Petitioners in the change of the method of Counselling made by the notice dated 09.04.2018. Reduction of chances of admission does not entail violation of any right.”

The Court concluded that:

• The change was introduced to prevent seat blocking, a significant issue in medical admissions.
• The petitioners had participated in the second round of counselling, which indicated their acceptance of the new rules.
• The second round of AIQ counselling was already completed, making further intervention unnecessary.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and ruled that:

• The modification in the counselling process was lawful and necessary to ensure fairness.
• There was no violation of any fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners.
• The AIQ seats that remained vacant after the second round should be reverted to the respective states, and fresh counselling should be conducted.

The Court directed states and deemed institutions that had completed the second round of counselling without waiting for AIQ reversion to conduct fresh counselling, ensuring proper seat allocation.

Petitioner Name: Rachit Sinha & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Place Of Incident: All India (Medical Counselling Process).
Judgment Date: 03-05-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rachit Sinha & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-05-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category