Rajasthan High Court Bench comprising of Justices IndrajitMahanty and Prakash Gupta in State of Rajasthan vs Dr. Yogesh Kumar Saini... on 17 July, 2020 set aside single judge order directing fresh counselling for medical post graduate admissions in the state.
Earlier Writ Petitions had been filed by the petitioners, challenging the first round of counselling done by the appellants. Petitioners had challenged the action of appellants in not including additional 89 seats, which were provided by Medical Council of India (MCI), for implementation of 10% EVS quota.
It was contended that serious prejudice has been caused to the candidates of general category who were meritorious and would have been provided the colleges and faculties of their choice and would have been placed accordingly.
Although government had offered the option of free exit whereby a candidate who had already been admitted in the first round of counselling was free to exit and again opt for a sear in second round of counselling.
The writ petition was allowed by the single judge and held that the future of the meritorious students had been put to loss, on account of not adding the seats in first round of counselling.
The HC held that the single judge has failed to interpret the simple language of Article 15(6).It also observed that students had participated in the first round of counselling without raising any objection, it was not open for the petitioners to challenge the rules of the game at a belated stage, more so when the appellants need to strictly follow admission process.
It further held that it is also not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware that 10% of the seats would be allotted to candidates belonging to the EWS. It was very much clear by notices and the letters issued that 10% of the total seats would be reserved for candidates belonging to EWS in educational institutions across the state.
It held that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioners by the non-inclusion of additional seats in the first round of counselling as there was an option of "free exit" and candidates who have filled their preferences in the first round of counselling can exit and submit their options again in the second round of counselling. And it held Petitioner did not have any cause of action to even file the writ petitions.
Pursuant to the 103rd amendment made to the constitution, reservations can be provided to candidates belonging to EWS candidates for admissions to educational institutions under Article 15(6). Acting in pursuance of the same, the State of Rajasthan provided for EWS reservation to the extent of 10%.
It further held policy of reservation is within the exclusive domain of the State and the MCI cannot curtail the power or discretion of the State in this regard. The role of the MCI is limited to allocating additional seats after taking into consideration the infrastructure in medical colleges across the State, the availability of faculty etc. Once the MCI allocated additional seats, it was not open for the MCI to direct the State-appellants to apply the policy of reservation in a particular way.
The division bench quashed and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge and held that the first round of counselling was proper and there was no illegality or infirmity in the same. The further held that the State was free to proceed with the second round of counselling and that EWS was to be applicable to all institutions and not on specific seats.