The petitioner, an economically weaker section (EWS) candidate, filed a plea with the Calcutta High Court after he faced difficulties during the NEET UG counseling process. His case involved a failed attempt to secure admission in a government medical college due to the non-receipt of a one-time password (OTP), which was essential for completing the registration.
Sequence of Events
The petitioner had secured a rank that should have qualified him for government college admission. However, during the online counseling process, he failed to receive the necessary OTP required to complete the registration. Upon facing this issue, he contacted the West Bengal Medical Counselling Committee (WBMCC) helpline. Despite reaching out to the helpline, he was advised to participate in the second round of counseling and was later allocated a seat in a private medical college, JIS Medical College. He was also informed that he could later seek migration to a government college once a vacancy arose.
Legal Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he could not participate in the first round of counseling due to the failure of the respondents to send the OTP in a timely manner. The lack of proper communication and technical failure, according to the petitioner, led to the loss of an opportunity to secure a place in a government medical college.
In contrast, the respondents’ counsel presented evidence indicating that the OTP had been sent on the last day of the first counseling round. The petitioner had only attempted to fetch the OTP on that final day and failed to do so earlier. Additionally, the respondents argued that the petitioner had delayed his representations and failed to raise concerns promptly, further complicating his claim.
Court’s Findings
The court noted that the petitioner’s delay in taking action was significant. Despite being aware of the issue, he waited until the final day of the first counseling round to attempt the OTP retrieval. Furthermore, the petitioner did not take immediate steps after missing the first counseling round and filed his petition much later, after a significant delay.
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s EWS status and the difficulties he might have faced but emphasized that delays in raising concerns could not be overlooked. The court emphasized that prompt action would have been required to address the issue at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, the delay in filing a petition further undermined the petitioner’s case.
Court's Decision
After hearing both sides, the division bench, consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, concluded that the petitioner’s lack of immediate action after failing to register in the first round of counseling was critical. The petitioner's failure to act quickly and file his objections in a timely manner led to the dismissal of his plea. The court found that the petitioner’s actions could not be excused, especially given the two-month delay in raising the issue.
Conclusion
In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that while the petitioner’s difficulties were acknowledged, the delays in addressing the issues and the failure to act promptly led to the rejection of his plea. The court emphasized that such delays in addressing procedural issues could not be overlooked, especially when they hinder the timely completion of an admission process. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.