Patna High Court Upholds BCECEB’s Decision to Debar Candidates from State Quota Counselling After Allotment in Stray Vacancy Round: “Policy Decisions Should Not Be Interfered With Unless Wholly Irrational or Unconstitutional”

Court’s Decision

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the exclusion of candidates who secured seats in the All India Quota’s stray round counselling from participating in the third round of state quota counselling was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The court concluded that there was no illegality or breach of rules by the respondents in debarring such candidates, as the policy decision was backed by sufficient material and taken in the interest of fairness.

Facts

The petitioner participated in the NEET-UG 2023 exam and secured a rank of 692 in the Backward Class category and 405 in the Reserved Category Girls (RCG) for the State of Bihar. She appeared in the first three rounds of counselling for the All India Quota and for the first two rounds of the Bihar State Quota but was unable to secure a seat. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the Stray Vacancy Round Counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) for the All India Quota and was allotted a seat in the BDS course at ESIC Dental Hospital.

While the Stray Vacancy Round was ongoing, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB) issued a notice dated 24.09.2023 for the 3rd round of counselling for the Bihar State Quota, where the petitioner applied and was eligible to be considered. However, on 29.09.2023, the BCECEB issued a notification debarring candidates, including the petitioner, who had secured seats in the Stray Vacancy Round from participating in the 3rd round of the State Quota counselling.

Issues

1. Whether the notification dated 29.09.2023, debarring candidates allotted seats in the All India Quota’s Stray Vacancy Round from participating in the third round of Bihar State Quota counselling, was arbitrary and illegal.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an MBBS seat in the State Quota despite being allotted a BDS seat in the All India Quota.
3. Whether the BCECEB was justified in debarring candidates based on a delayed counselling process.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The petitioner contended that there was no mention in the notification dated 24.09.2023 that candidates allotted a seat in the Stray Round would be debarred from the third round of Bihar State Quota counselling.
2. The petitioner argued that she was eligible for the 3rd round of Bihar State counselling and had a higher rank compared to other candidates who were allotted an MBBS seat in the RCG category. The last selected candidate in the RCG category had a rank of 445, while the petitioner’s rank was 405.
3. It was argued that the BCECEB acted arbitrarily by debarment without authority and sought a declaration that the notification dated 29.09.2023 was illegal and unsustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The BCECEB submitted that the Stray Vacancy Round Counselling rules, as per the MCC’s Information Bulletin, made it clear that candidates allotted seats in the stray round must join them or face debarment from further counselling rounds.
2. It was contended that the petitioner, having secured a BDS seat in the Stray Round, was required to join the allotted seat, and any non-compliance would attract debarment for one year from NEET and forfeiture of fees.
3. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner, along with 287 other candidates who were allotted seats in the Stray Round, were debarred as per the established rules to ensure compliance with the seat allotment process.

Analysis of the Law

The court examined the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme of UG NEET-2023, which explicitly stated that candidates allotted a seat in the Stray Round must join the allotted seat or be debarred from NEET for one year. The court further noted that allowing such candidates to participate in the Bihar State Quota counselling would have violated the scheme’s objectives and created an imbalance in seat allocation.

Precedent Analysis

1. S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465: The petitioner relied on this decision to argue that she was entitled to a remedy due to the authority’s fault. The court found that the petitioner did not meet all the criteria set out in this case, as there was no fault or irrational denial by the authorities in her case.
2. Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust vs. Medical Council of India: The Supreme Court held that students who take admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed to vacate these seats to prevent wastage of seats. This was cited to justify the debarment policy.
3. Nihila P.P. v. Medical Counselling Committee (MCC): The court referenced this case to emphasize the importance of adhering to the counselling scheme and avoiding discrepancies.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that the BCECEB had acted within its authority in debarring the petitioner and others from participating in the 3rd round of State Quota counselling, as they had already been allotted seats in the All India Quota’s Stray Vacancy Round. The petitioner’s claim for an MBBS seat in the State Quota was rejected because permitting her participation would have disrupted the counselling process and defeated the purpose of the seat allotment guidelines.

Conclusion

The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the BCECEB’s notification dated 29.09.2023, finding that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in debarring the petitioner. The court emphasized that policy decisions of this nature should not be interfered with unless they are wholly irrational or unconstitutional, which was not the case here.

Implications

The decision reaffirms the binding nature of the seat allotment process and the rules laid down by counselling authorities. It upholds the sanctity of counselling schemes and reinforces the principle that candidates must adhere to the rules to ensure transparency and fairness in the admission process.

Also Read – Sikkim High Court: Corroboration Not Required for Conviction If Victim’s Testimony is Trustworthy; Rapid Healing of Sodomy Injuries Does Not Undermine Credibility—Upholds Conviction for Repeated Sexual Assault on Minor