In a significant development impacting thousands of aspirants, the Karnataka High Court has nullified the provisional seat allotment list for the third round of counselling for undergraduate medical and dental courses in the state. The court issued fresh directives to the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) to complete a revised allotment process by a strict deadline.
Court Bench Overturns Provisional List
A full bench comprising Justices BM Shyam Prasad, MI Arun, and TM Nadaf delivered the judgment on Friday. This decision came after a division bench of the same court had delivered conflicting verdicts on November 19 regarding petitions that challenged the provisional allotment list published on October 24. The deadlock necessitated the formation of the full bench to resolve the issue.
The bench partly allowed petitions filed by a group of students, leading to the quashing of the controversial list. The court found procedural irregularities in how the KEA had conducted the counselling for the additional seats that became available after the initial rounds.
Detailed Directives for Fresh Allotment
The High Court has laid out a clear, multi-stage process for the KEA to follow. Firstly, the authority must allot the 443 additional seats to eligible candidates based on the options they had already entered during the counselling process. The goal is to fill any of these seats that remained vacant after the first stage of the third round.
Secondly, KEA must then proceed to allot the 377 consequential seats—these are seats that become vacant when candidates from the earlier round upgrade to the newly added seats. Finally, any seats that still remain unfilled after these two steps must also be allotted. The court has mandated that the entire exercise must be completed by December 17, 2023.
Observations on NMC and State Government's Role
The bench made crucial observations addressing the root causes of such admissions turmoil. It stated that when the National Medical Commission (NMC) approves additional seat intake for the next academic year, and the state government publishes a seat matrix including these seats, they must consider the expectations of increased allotment in the current academic year.
The court noted that since the infrastructure for these additional seats is already in place, public interest is best served by offering them immediately through a transparent process. The bench strongly advised that the NMC must ascertain whether counselling has begun before granting approvals for extra seats. If counselling is underway, the approval should stipulate that these new seats cannot be offered in the current academic year to avoid confusion.
Furthermore, the court observed that the state government, while publishing the seat matrix, must be aware of the complications that arise if all aspects are not considered. It urged authorities to make timely decisions as required by law to prevent such exacerbation of problems in future admission cycles.
The court also directed the NMC to consider granting approval for the final list submitted by KEA in accordance with the court's directions, even if there is a delay, given the extraordinary circumstances.
Reasoning Behind the Decision
The full bench explained its rationale in detail. It stated that the rights of petitioners (students who had already secured seats in the second round) were considered fructified once they took admission. However, by allowing them to participate in a further selection round—even if only for additional seats—KEA had effectively resurrected their right to compete and brought them back into the selection process.
The court found that KEA did not confine the subsequent stage to just consequential seats but also offered newly-added seats. This action opened up the selection round for all. The bench ruled that once these petitioners are back in the process, they must be given a fair chance to upgrade to better seats, whether based on cost or institution prestige.
Denying this opportunity, while extending benefits to others, would violate the principle of a fair process. Consequently, the court ordered that all additional seats not filled in the first stage, and the vacancies created from upgrades, must be offered to all candidates who participated in the first stage of the third round but were not allotted a seat initially.
This landmark order aims to bring clarity and fairness to a process that had become mired in litigation, ensuring that precious medical and dental seats are allocated justly and efficiently before the academic year progresses further.
