PANKAJ KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

(2.) In the present petition, it has been alleged that for conducting National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG-2018, a brochure was published by the Director General, Medical Health and Training. The petitioner applied and appeared in the NEET UG-2018 and the Roll Number 513812113 was allotted to the petitioner. It is said that in the said test conducted by CBSE, the petitioner's all India ranking was 10092 and the State rank was 1195. It is stated that the petitioner appeared in the first counselling and an allotment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Chairman, counselling Board (Annexure-2 to the petition), whereby the petitioner was kept in the category BCOP and was allotted the Institute Government Medical College, Azamgarh for the course of MBBS. The petitioner in terms of the said letter appeared before the Principal, Government Medical College, Azamgarh on 10. 7. 2018 and submitted his papers as well as deposited an amount of Rs. 31,800/- by demand draft no. 409058, which was duly received by the Principal as is perused from the receipt dated 10. 7. 2018 (Annexure-3 to the petition).

(3.) The petitioner thereafter sought an NOC to appear in the second counselling only with a view to improve and get a better Institution. The said NOC was given to the petitioner on 10. 7. 2018. The petitioner appeared in the second round of counselling. In the said second round of counselling, the petitioner was allotted the same Medical College i. e. Government Medical College, Azamgarh. However, in the said second allotment letter his category was mentioned as GNOP, whereas in the first allotment letter the allotted category was mentioned as BCOP. The petitioner, believing that he was allotted the same college reported for admission, but no process was conducted by the College and the petitioner was throughout under the impression that his fees and papers had already been deposited in the College in question, as such no further steps were to be taken. The petitioner, when he approached the respondent no. 3, the College in question, was informed that his admission had been cancelled because the petitioner had appeared in the second counselling and as in terms of the allotment letter issued after the second round of counselling, the petitioner did not report at the allotted College on or before 18. 8. 2018, as such his admission had been cancelled.