IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO WRIT PETITION No.9285 OF 2017 (EDN-MED-ADMN) BETWEEN:
Dr. CHANDAN.C S/O CHINNARAJU.G AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS #405, SANGAM QUARTERS SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
…PETITIONER (By Sri REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR MAHATMA GANDHI MARG (RING ROAD) NEW DELHI – 110 029.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS (By SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 Miss NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE STATE-WISE RESULT OF AIPGMEE-2017 ACADEMIC SESSION (KARNATAKA) PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF R-1 KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORTIY VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS ILLEGAL AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-1 & 2 TO PREPARE A KARNATAKA STATE MERIT LIST IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 27.09.2016 AND 24.01.2017 ISSUED BY R-3 NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS VIDE ANNEXURES-E AND F TO WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER As it was submitted that there is urgency and the last date for verification of documents is to take place tomorrow, we had permitted circulation of the matter by directing learned counsel for the petitioner to serve advance copies to learned advocates who normally appear for the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) as well as the Director of Medical Education.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking appropriate writ to declare that the State-wise result of AIPGMEE-2017 Academic Session (Karnataka) published as illegal and it is prayed to direct respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to register online to PGET-2017 and to permit him to take part in the counseling process scheduled to be held for the Post Graduate Medical Decree or Diploma seat.
3. We have heard Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N K Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Miss Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
4. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no dispute on the point that 50 percentile is the minimum eligibility criteria as per MCI Regulations and such percentile should be secured in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) Examination for admission to Post Graduate course in the medical faculty. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that, percentile is different from percentage and the percentile would vary, because it is dependant upon the number of students who appear at the examination. He submitted that when one has to be considered towards All-India seat, percentile at the All- India level is to be considered, which has been so mentioned in the NEET result. But, if the seats are to be considered for the State quota, it is obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to prepare a separate percentile from amongst the students belonging to Karnataka State and then to consider as to whether minimum requirement of the eligibility is met with or not. He submitted that the aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken and the petitioner has been deprived of the consideration for the counseling on the ground that he is not satisfying the minimum percentile of 40%. He submitted that the aforesaid action on the part of respondent No.1 is illegal and this part may be interfered.
5. Whereas, Mr. N K Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Miss Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon Regulation 9(III) of the Post-graduate Education Regulations, 2000, submitted that minimum marks at 50 percentile for the General Category and 40 percentile for the Reserved Category are a must for satisfying the eligibility criteria for admission to any Post Graduate course. When the petitioner has secured less than 40 percentile marks in the NEET Examination, he is not eligible. The submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that for satisfying the eligibility criteria, the percentile in the NEET Examination must be satisfied and it is only after the eligibility criteria is satisfied and the seats are to be allotted while preparing inter se merit list, the distinction will be there for All-India seat as well as for State seat. In their submissions, no illegality is committed by the Authority in finding the petitioner as not meeting with the eligibility criteria for Post Graduate admission in medical.
6. We may record that the requirements of Regulation 9(iii) of the said Regulation reads as under;
“ In order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate course in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in ‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses’ held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates as provided in clause 9 (II) above with locomotory disability of lower limbs, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All-India common merit list in ‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test’ for Postgraduate courses:
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to Post Graduate Courses, the Central Government in consultation with Medial Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only.”
7. The aforesaid requirement is common to Post Graduate course for a particular academic year and it is not different or marks are provided for different States. Further, the language used is “minimum of marks at 50th percentile in ‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses’ held for the said academic year”. It is true that the percentile would be dependant upon the number of students appearing at the examination, but once the Medical Council of India, which is an expert body, has framed the Regulations, this Court cannot substitute its own reason against the decision taken by the expert body. Further, the percentile is in context to the NEET Examination, which is at All-India level. The attempt to contend that respondent No.1 should undertake the exercise of calculating separate percentile for State quota seat cannot be countenanced for two reasons, one is that the eligibility criteria for Post Graduate course has to be common through out the country and there cannot be different eligibility for different States. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is entertained, it would lead to the situation of different eligibility criteria for different seats may be for All-India or may be for State seats. Such can never be intended by bringing about the regulation which is a common yardstick to meet with the eligibility criteria. The second reason for not accepting the contention is that the contention is misconceived inasmuch as preparing inter se merit list for allotment of seats for All-India quota and for State quota is another aspect in contradistinction for satisfying the eligibility criteria. Once a student is meeting with the eligibility criteria, then only he would enter the inter se merit list. In our view, it is only after the student satisfies the minimum eligibility criteria for that respective category, then he has to participate at the counseling, wherein inter se merit has to be considered and at that stage, the number of students in the State or the number of students at the All-India seat would be relevant for the purpose of preparing the merit list. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted.
8. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner is not meeting with the minimum eligibility criteria as per the MCI Regulations i.e. 40 percentile in the NEET Examination. Under the circumstance, if the petitioner is not permitted to participate at the counseling, such an action cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, which may call for interference.
9. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mv