2013 (8) TMI 1038 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of NEET for admissions to postgraduate courses.
2. Legality of State Government's decision to cancel NEET-based admissions.
3. Rights of students admitted under NEET vs. those admitted under State Rules.
4. Judicial intervention and High Court's role during the pendency of Supreme Court's decision.
5. Equitable relief for students affected by the State Government's decision.

Summary:

1. Validity of NEET for Admissions to Postgraduate Courses:
The Supreme Court referenced multiple cases to highlight the ongoing judicial scrutiny of medical admissions, including *Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board v. Chandan Mishra* and *Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh*. The Court noted that the State of Goa had framed the Goa (Rules for admission to Postgraduate degree and diploma courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 2004. However, the Government of Goa decided to implement NEET for the academic year 2013-14. Despite the Supreme Court's interim order allowing the conduct but not the declaration of NEET results, the results were eventually declared on 16.5.2013 due to another interim order lifting the bar on result declaration.

2. Legality of State Government's Decision to Cancel NEET-based Admissions:
The Supreme Court criticized the State Government's decision on 25.7.2013 to cancel NEET-based admissions and revert to State Rules-based admissions, calling it an act showing "total lack of prudence." The Court emphasized that the State Government should have adhered to the Supreme Court's protection of NEET-based admissions as stated in its final judgment on 18.7.2013 in *Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India*.

3. Rights of Students Admitted Under NEET vs. Those Admitted Under State Rules:
The Supreme Court held that the admissions given on the basis of NEET were protected by its final judgment and could not be canceled by the State Government. The Court directed that the petitioners admitted via NEET should be allowed to continue their studies. Simultaneously, the Court addressed the plight of students admitted under State Rules, acknowledging their provisional admissions and directing that 21 seats transferred to the State quota should be filled by these students based on their inter se merit as per the Rules.

4. Judicial Intervention and High Court's Role During the Pendency of Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court of Bombay at Goa should not have entertained the writ petition or passed any interim order while the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court. The High Court's interim order had created confusion and led to the cancellation of NEET-based admissions by the State Government.

5. Equitable Relief for Students Affected by the State Government's Decision:
The Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to students affected by the State Government's decision. The Court directed that 21 seats transferred to the State quota should be filled by students admitted under the 2004 Rules based on their merit. The Court, however, declined to increase seats for the academic year 2013-14 or adjust affected students in the subsequent academic year, citing precedents that prohibit such actions.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to allow NEET-based admissions to continue and to fill the transferred State quota seats with students admitted under the State Rules, ensuring no encroachment on the streams already allotted to NEET-qualified students. The Court emphasized adherence to legal and judicial pronouncements by the State Government and public authorities.

← Previous Next →