Summary
In a NEET-PG 2017-18 seat-blocking case the Allahabad High Court had awarded Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each of two candidates who, having accepted seats in the first two rounds, were excluded from the mop-up round, and had directed the State to reform its admission procedure. The Supreme Court held the compensation arbitrary and excessive, since the exclusion followed the then-prevailing procedure and this Court's directions and both candidates completed their courses; it substituted Rs. 1 lakh each towards litigation expenses, otherwise left the High Court's order undisturbed in view of the reforms since adopted by the State and the National Medical Commission, and issued ten directions to curb seat blocking, including a nationally synchronised counselling calendar, fee disclosure, upgrade windows, penalties, Aadhaar-based seat tracking and third-party oversight under the NMC.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's award of Rs. 10,00,000 compensation to each writ petitioner for being deprived of participation in the mop-up round of NEET-PG 2017-18 counselling was justified.
- Whether the High Court's directions to curb seat blocking warranted interference in view of the regulatory reforms since introduced by the State and the National Medical Commission.
- What further directions are required to ensure effective implementation of the revised counselling framework and uphold merit, fairness and transparency.
Provisions considered
- Sections 24(1), 25(1) and 57(2), National Medical Commission Act, 2019Noted from the NMC's submissions that, under these powers, the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (Regulations 4.3 and 4.4) and the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (Regulations 12 to 14 and 16) mandate common counselling conducted solely online and prohibit any other mode of admission; these reforms were held to address the High Court's concerns about seat blocking. (¶¶ 13.3, 13.4, 14, 14.1, 14.4)
- Section 33, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956Noted that the MCI, under this power, inserted Regulations 9A and 5A in the Postgraduate and Graduate Medical Education Regulations in 2017 mandating common or combined counselling by State or Central authorities, and later amended the regulations in 2018 on this Court's directions; the Act was repealed in 2020 and replaced by the NMC Act. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3)
Held
- Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling, where candidates temporarily accept seats only to abandon them after securing preferred options, distorts actual seat availability, disadvantages higher-ranked aspirants who have committed to less preferred choices, and reflects systemic flaws of fragmented governance, lack of transparency and weak enforcement; a fair system requires structural coordination, technological modernisation and regulatory accountability at State and Central levels. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The measures since adopted, including security deposits, online mop-up and stray vacancy rounds, debarment of candidates who fail to join allotted seats, the four-round counselling scheme approved in Nihila P.P., round-finality rules and the 2023 Regulations requiring all counselling to be conducted online by State and Central authorities, directly address the High Court's concerns; the Court therefore declined to interfere with the impugned order in its entirety but issued directions for effective implementation of the revised framework. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4)
- The respondents participated in the first and second rounds, accepted seats in Pathology and Paediatrics when Radiology was unavailable, and completed their courses; under the then-prevailing procedure, in adherence to this Court's directions in Ashish Ranjan and the order of 09.05.2017, candidates who accepted seats in earlier rounds could not participate in the mop-up round, and the High Court itself found no valuable right denied. The precedents the High Court relied on concerned students who lost an academic year through no fault of theirs; awarding compensation for seat blocking is not common practice, and Rs. 10 lakh each was arbitrary and excessive. (¶¶ 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3)
- Since the respondents' litigation nevertheless catalysed significant reforms, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each was awarded towards litigation expenses, payable by the petitioners within three weeks, and the High Court's direction for Rs. 10 lakh compensation was set aside. (¶¶ 15.3, 15.4)
- Directions issued to the authorities: a nationally synchronised counselling calendar aligning AIQ and State rounds; mandatory pre-counselling fee disclosure by private and deemed universities; a centralised fee regulation framework under the NMC; upgrade windows after round 2 for admitted candidates without reopening counselling to new entrants; publication of raw scores, answer keys and normalisation formulae; strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of deposit, disqualification of repeat offenders and blacklisting of complicit colleges; Aadhaar-based seat tracking; accountability of State authorities and institutional DMEs through contempt or disciplinary action; a uniform counselling conduct code across States; and a third-party oversight mechanism under the NMC for annual audits. (¶ 16)
Result
Special Leave Petition disposed of. The High Court's direction awarding compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to each of respondent nos. 1 and 2 set aside and replaced by Rs. 1,00,000 each towards litigation expenses, payable by the petitioners within three weeks; the impugned order otherwise not interfered with; ten directions issued to the concerned authorities to curb seat blocking; pending applications closed.