The Delhi High Court recently addressed a petition concerning the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024-25 admissions, focusing on the Medical Counselling Committee's (MCC) decision to amend the seat conversion algorithm prior to the third round of counselling. This amendment involved altering the conversion of unfilled Scheduled Castes-Children/Women (SC-CW) seats, ensuring they reverted to their original SC category instead of being converted to Unreserved-Children/Women (UR-CW) seats. The petitioners, eligible candidates under the Armed Forces quota, challenged this change, asserting that it adversely affected their admission prospects.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, upheld the MCC's decision, emphasizing that rectifying a legal error to align with constitutional principles before the counselling process does not constitute a procedural breach or administrative fault. The court highlighted that such corrections are essential to maintain the integrity of the reservation system and to uphold the constitutional mandate. Justice Sharma stated, "The correction of an unintentional legal error prior to the counselling process cannot be construed as a procedural breach or administrative fault."
The controversy stemmed from the initial Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme for NEET 2024, which proposed that unfilled SC-CW seats be converted to UR-CW seats during the third round of counselling. However, prior to the commencement of this round, the MCC revised the algorithm so that unfilled Scheduled Tribe-Children/Women (ST-CW) and SC-CW seats would revert to their respective ST and SC categories. The MCC justified this change as a measure to align with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court rulings, ensuring that reservation benefits are rightfully extended to the intended beneficiaries.
The petitioners argued that despite their eligibility for MBBS seats under the CW category in Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, they were denied admission following the third counselling round. They contended that the MCC's failure to implement the original Information Bulletin's provisions constituted a serious error, adversely impacting their legitimate expectations and prospects.
In response, the MCC maintained that the amendment was announced before the third round of counselling commenced. According to the Information Bulletin, seat conversions were to be executed during the third round only if candidates from the respective categories were unavailable. The MCC emphasized that the revision aimed to uphold the constitutional mandate of reservations, ensuring that unfilled SC-CW seats were allocated to SC candidates, thereby preserving the integrity of the reservation system.
Justice Sharma underscored that the petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention. He reiterated that the court's role in reservation-related disputes is to prioritize procedural integrity and adhere to constitutional principles. The judgment reflects a cautious approach, acknowledging the necessity of corrective measures to rectify inadvertent legal errors in the reservation process, provided such measures are implemented transparently and in a timely manner.
This ruling holds significant implications for the administration of reservation policies in educational institutions. It affirms the authority of counselling bodies like the MCC to make necessary adjustments to seat allocation algorithms to comply with constitutional mandates, even if such adjustments occur mid-process. The judgment also serves as a reminder to candidates that while procedural guidelines are essential, they are subject to modifications aimed at upholding the broader principles of equity and justice enshrined in the Constitution.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision reinforces the principle that rectifying procedural errors to align with constitutional mandates is not only permissible but necessary to ensure that reservation benefits reach their intended recipients. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity of the reservation system and upholding the constitutional values of equality and social justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.