SUBHAM SEN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to the inadequate allotment in respect of the unreserved segment in the 'Sainik Category' in accordance with percentage earmarked for the above category for providing admission to the MBBS course based on the NEET result.

(2.) The sequence of events is as follows: the Petitioner admittedly became successful in the All India Examination conducted by the NEET and secured rank of 1575 in the State quota and in the 'Sainik Category' at Sl. No. 5. There is no dispute for the fact that, out of the total seats, 3% has to be earmarked in Sainik Category in each segment including the unreserved segment. The case of the Petitioner is that, in the initial round of counselling, based on the total number of seats available, the Petitioner unfortunately did not find a place as only 'four seats' were available and alloted under the unreserved Sainik segment, which were filled up by the Respondents by accommodating candidates who were standing in front of the Petitioner based on their better merit. The heartburn started in the 2 nd round of counseling, when additional seats were alloted, whereby another extent of 'four seats' were to be given in the said segment by applying the quota of 3% for Unreserved Sainik Segment. The Petitioner, having been placed in Sl. No. 5, was the next person to be alloted against the next seat in the Unreserved Sainik Segment. The rule has been given 'go bye' and the seats have been filled up by the Respondents from other segments, thus, virtually defeating the rights and interest of the Petitioner. This made the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition with the following prayers:

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the submission with reference to the pleadings raised in the writ petition and asserted that the Respondents went wrong in not applying the rules of reservation in respect of the Sainik Category in the 2nd round of counselling. The prescribed ratio is to be made available on each occasion, as and when the seats are increased and it is not correct to say (as contended by the Respondents) that it can be applied only once i.e. in respect of the 1st round of counseling. The learned counsel sought to demonstrate the position with reference to the materials on record including the increase in number of the seats.