Read Time: 05 minutes

Coming to the aid of two NEET PG, 2021-22 candidates who had been erroneously allotted the same seat, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday provided interim relief. 

The bench of Justice Abdul Moin directed that till the disposal of the instant case, the candidate who had been allotted the disputed seat in the first round of the counseling would be permitted to continue her course in the designated institution/hospital and the other candidate would be considered for allotment of another seat as per his merit. 

Susmita Yadav, a NEET PG qualified candidate had filed a writ petition before the high court alleging that though in the first round of counseling she had been allocated District Civil Hospital, Maharaja Agrasen, Hisar, Haryana for the programme namely "NBEMS-Diploma-Pediatrics", before her physical joining date, her seat was allotted to another candidate indicating that Yadav had not reported and the seat was vacant.

However, Yadav's counsel had argued that once she had already secured admission in the said hospital after the first round of NEET counseling, had already deposited the fee, her documents had been verified and her joining had also been certified by the hospital concerned, there would be no question of the seat still lying vacant in the second round of counseling.

In support these submissions, Yadav had also placed the allotment letter, fee receipt amounting to rupees 1,47,500 as per the PG-DNB fee submission, and the joining certificate issued by the Principal Medical Officer of the allocated hospital on record. 

On the other hand, Senior Advocate S. B. Pandey, assisted by Adv. Ashwani Kumar Singh on behalf of Medical Counseling Committee (MCC), Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India had submitted that though Yadav had been allotted the concerned seat yet after due verification the allocated institute was required to update the status of every allotted candidate that they had reported to the college on the intra MCC portal, which was not done in Yadav's case. 

It was further argued on MCC's behalf that as it was the institute that had failed to indicate Yadav's status on the MCC portal, therefore, there was no error on MCC's part allocating the same seat to another candidate. 

Taking note of this glitch, the court concluded that a prima facie case for interference is made out and stated that there was no fault on Yadav or another candidate's part. 

Accordingly, while seeking counter affidavit from all the responding parties within 4 weeks, court provided the interim relief to Yadav and the other candidate. 

Case Title: Dr. Susmita Yadav v. Union Of India