NEET-PG 2021 Counselling Dispute: Supreme Court Rules Against Special Stray Round
The Supreme Court recently ruled on the matter of vacant seats in NEET-PG 2021 admissions in the case of Dr. Astha Goel & Ors. v. The Medical Counselling Committee & Ors.. The petitioners, a group of medical graduates, sought a Special Stray Round of Counselling for unfilled postgraduate medical seats, arguing that leaving these seats vacant would be wasteful when candidates were still available.
However, after multiple rounds of counselling, approximately 1,456 seats remained vacant, most of which were non-clinical courses. The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the scheduled admission process. The Court ruled that allowing further counselling would compromise the medical education structure and affect the integrity of the NEET-PG admission process.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by medical graduates who had participated in the NEET-PG 2021 counselling process but were unable to secure admission. The dispute arose after multiple rounds of counselling concluded, leaving 1,456 seats vacant. The petitioners sought a directive from the Supreme Court to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct a Special Stray Round of counselling for these unfilled seats.
The Court clubbed multiple cases together, including:
- Writ Petition (C) No. 409 of 2022: Filed by Dr. Astha Goel and others against the Medical Counselling Committee.
- Writ Petition (C) No. 393 of 2022: Filed by Dr. Atharv Tungatkar and others.
- Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10395 of 2022: Filed by Dr. Nikhil Arora.
- Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10539 of 2022: Filed by Dr. Khundongbam Chetan.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that conducting a Special Stray Round of counselling was necessary to fill the remaining vacant seats and prevent the wastage of medical resources. Their key points included:
- Allowing the vacant seats to remain unfilled would be unfair to aspiring doctors and would also hurt the institutions where the seats were available.
- The petitioners were willing to accept admission into any of the vacant seats, regardless of the institution or location.
- Previous glitches in the counselling process had necessitated additional rounds of seat allocation, and thus, an extra round should be allowed in this case as well.
- Among the 1,456 vacant seats, many were clinical seats, contradicting the authorities’ claim that most were in paramedical fields.
- The seats had remained unfilled due to resignations, non-joining, and candidates not reporting, which meant they should have been reassigned to remaining candidates.
- The MCC had a duty to ensure that no seats remained vacant when candidates were available.
- The government could have developed a mechanism to allocate these seats even after the closure of the software used for seat allotment.
- The refund of security deposits to candidates should not be a reason to deny further counselling.
- Candidates for NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-PG 2022 were different, so the vacant seats should be filled based on the merit list of NEET-PG 2021.
- Even if admissions were delayed, students would still be able to complete their medical education within the normal timeframe.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India and the Medical Counselling Committee opposed the petitions, arguing that:
- NEET-PG 2021 had already undergone nine rounds of counselling, including an additional round due to a previous Supreme Court order.
- Out of 40,000 seats, only 1,456 remained vacant, and most were non-clinical, which usually go unfilled every year.
- Holding an additional round of counselling would disrupt the medical education calendar and create logistical challenges.
- The counselling process had to be completed in time for NEET-PG 2022 admissions, which were already scheduled to begin in July 2022.
- Keeping medical education on schedule was more important than filling a few remaining seats.
- Many of the vacant seats were in private colleges with high fees, making them unattractive to candidates, even if another round was conducted.
- Once the counselling software was closed, it was not feasible to reopen it for additional seat allotment.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of maintaining the integrity of the counselling schedule and dismissed the petitions. The Court observed:
“The process of admission, especially in medical education, cannot be endless. It must end at a particular point of time. The time schedule has to be adhered to, otherwise, ultimately, it may affect medical education and public health.”
The Court also referred to past judgments, including:
- Supreet Batra v. Union of India (2003): Holding that students cannot be admitted mid-term even if some seats remain vacant.
- Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India (2019): Observing that non-clinical seats often remain vacant every year and that an extension of counselling should not be granted merely because seats are unfilled.
Final Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following key rulings:
- The plea for a Special Stray Round of counselling was dismissed.
- The vacant seats would not be filled, as the admission process had already ended.
- The academic schedule of NEET-PG 2022 would continue as planned.
- The ruling emphasized that extending the process could compromise the quality of medical education and disrupt future admissions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms the importance of adhering to the admission schedule in medical education. While acknowledging the concerns of the petitioners, the Court ruled that keeping the process structured was more critical than filling every last seat. This judgment sets a precedent that admissions should not be extended indefinitely at the cost of disrupting the medical academic calendar.
The ruling also highlights the reality that certain non-clinical seats in medical colleges remain vacant every year due to low demand. The Court’s decision ensures that NEET-PG 2022 admissions proceed without delay, preventing further disruptions to medical education in India.
Petitioner Name: Dr. Astha Goel & Ors..
Respondent Name: The Medical Counselling Committee & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 10-06-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: dr.-astha-goel-&-ors-vs-the-medical-counsell-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-06-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2022
See all petitions in 2022 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