SC refuses to entertain plea seeking admission to higher option seat in AIQ

OVERVIEW

• On Wednesday, a vacation bench of the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging a judgement of the Kerala High Court that had happened on December 15.

• The dismissal was with regards to a plea made by the student who was seeking admission to a "higher option seat" in Allotment to medical and allied courses in terms of NEET Rank in the All-India Quota Seats and KEAM counselling for state of Kerala.

• The bench consisted of Justices Hemant Gupta and Indira Banerjee. They had already orally observed that the petitioner had taken admission in terms of the All India Quota after the second round, therefore the same could not be allowed.

FURTHER DETAILS

• The bench had expressed no interest to entertain the petition. They had sought to withdraw it. Therefore, the petition was withdrawn and dismissed.

• The petition stated that the High Court had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by thereby resulting in wrongful denial of admissionto the Petitioner in such Government medical colleges which were in the option list of the Petitioner in both, the All India Quota Counsellingand the KEAM counselling of State of Kerala, while not considering the merit secured by thePetitioner in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)- 2020.

• The petitioner had said that 24 other candidates ranking below the Petitioner have been allotted seats in such colleges, while denying admission to the Petitioner in the said colleges.

BRIEF HISTORY

• The petitioner had secured All India Rank No. 11837 and Kerala State Medical Rank No. 1695 after appearing for the NEET (UG) entrance examination. The petitioner belonged to the Muslim community which falls under the category of OBC.

• In the first round of counselling against 15% seats in the All India Quota, the Petitioner was allotted to a college in Andaman and on the basis of allotment in the State Quota, the Petitioner was allotted to Amala Medical College, Trissur and she has joined there.

• However, in the second round of counselling for AIQ seats, she was allotted to a seat in Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, Karnataka, and she joined there.

• It It was the grievance of the petitioner that 24 candidates ranked below the Petitioner have been allotted seats in Government Medical Colleges in Kerala which were high up in the list of preferences provided by the petitioner.

SUBSEQUENT HAPPENINGS

• The plea stated that gross injustice has been meted out to the Petitioner because she is being denied admission to a college where she should be preferred on the basis of her merit.

• In addition, it was made clear that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many States within the territory of India did not conduct the first rounds of the respective State counselling, because of which numerous candidates did not participate in the second round of AIQ counselling. As a result, about 2000 seats were vacant in the AIQ.

• In In this context, the petitioner stated that High Court ought to have considered that the injustice could have been avoided if the huge number of seatsreverted back to the States were offered to high ranking candidates including the petitioner, who could have chosen the available higher option.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE DECISION MADE BY THE COURT WAS FAIR? MENTION YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW!