The Patna High Court reiterated that once there is sufficient evidence to support a particular policy decision and the same falls within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution, the The power of judicial review does not extend to determining the merits of this political decision. or find an alternative.

The above decision came upon dismissal of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to allot MBBS seat to the petitioner.

Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court, Justice Anjani Kumar Sharanpresiding over the case, observed, “There is no doubt that the court has sufficient power of judicial review over such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient evidence to make a particular policy decision, placing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, the power of judicial review would not extend not to determine the merits of such a political decision or to engage in the exercise of discovering whether there might be more appropriate or better alternatives.

“Once we find that the parameters of Article 14 are met; there was reasonable reflection to arrive at a decision based on convincing elements; the decision is neither arbitrary nor irrational and; if taken in public interest, the Court must respect such decision of the Executive because policy making is the domain of the Executive. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the policy decision taken by the respondents is arbitrary and based on irrational consideration, in bad faith or contrary to statutory provisions, the same calls for no interference on the part of this court in the exercise of its power of judicial control”, » emphasized Justice Sharan.

The petitioner, a candidate for admission to undergraduate medical courses, appeared for the NEET 2023 examination. Following this, the Bihar Combined Entrance Examination Board (BCECEB) issued a notice on 24.09.2023 for the 3rd round of online counseling, for which the petitioner was eligible and applied.

The Medical Advisory Committee (MCC) subsequently published the results of the Stray Round, during which the petitioner was awarded a place on the BDS course. However, on 29.09.2023, BCECEB issued a notification stating that candidates who were allotted a seat under the All India Quota Stray Round by the MCC would not be eligible for a seat in the 3rd round of online counseling for the Bihar quota. Therefore, despite having a higher ranking than some candidates who were allotted MBBS seats in Bihar, the petitioner did not get a seat.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that she was ranked 405 in the Reserved Girl Category (RCG), which was higher than the last selected candidate in the RCG category, who had a rank of 445. He submitted that this clearly indicated that female candidates with significant abilities of lower grades than the petitioner were admitted to MBBS course in the third round of counseling under the state quota.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that if the applicant chose to exit and did not rejoin the seat allocated to her in the Stray Round, in accordance with the counseling program outlined by the MCC, she would be responsible for the consequences described in the MCC Guidelines. These include a one-year exclusion from the NEET exam and forfeiture of fees.

The Court observed that to facilitate student participation in the 2023 advising, MCC issued a newsletter and advising schedule, which included a rule specifying:

“If a candidate is allocated a seat in the Stray Round, he must join the allocated seat/college. Failure to occupy the allotted seat will result in the candidate being debarred from the NEET exam for one year, as well as loss of tuition fees.

After considering this provision, the Court observed: “there is no doubt that if the BCECE board had allowed the petitioner to join the board for the 3rd round against the state quota, it would have defeated the exclusion of the petitioner from consideration NEET for one year for not joining the seat allotted to him. in the Stray Round by the MCC in accordance with the provisions contained in the above allocation plan prepared and published by the MCC.

The Court added: “Thus, it was obligatory for the petitioner to join the seat/college allotted by the MCC to the petitioner in the stray round, as 288 candidates (including the petitioner) who were allotted seats in the third round of vacancy at all The Indian quota (out of a total of 2,140 candidates) has been removed from the list of advice for UGMAC-2023 for the 3rd round by the BCECE Board of Directors.

Referring to Chapter 12 of the UG NEET 2023 Information Bulletin, which provides detailed final guidelines on the Stray Round, the Court noted that it is clear that once a candidate is allotted a seat, the option to exit and refrain from joining is only available until the 3rd. counseling cycle, and even then, only with loss of fees and disqualification for subsequent cycles.

Therefore, the petitioner had no option to opt out and could not refuse the seat/university allotted in the lost round for All India quota, the Court said.

The Court further stated that even if the petitioner was allowed to participate in counseling without being debarred, she would not meet the eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS as the cut-off for female candidates from B.C. was fixed between 634 and 607, which takes the cut-off score to 620. The petitioner’s score of 605 would therefore not qualify her for any MBBS seat.

Considering all the arguments and facts, the Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Munmun Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Citation LL: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 107

Click here to read the judgment