Pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to Students denied MBBS counselling: Court to Bihar Exam Board

Patna: Three medical undergraduate course aspirants, who were denied MBBS pre-admission counselling, on October 7 last year, against all-India quota Seats are to be paid a compensation of Rs. 50 lakh by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB) ran the Patna High Court Directive on Thursday. The BCECEB, meanwhile, has decided will file an LPA against the Patna High Court's Directive asking it to pay Rs 50 lakh as compensation to three doctor aspirants.

The Patna High Court order passed by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh is based on the writ applications filed by Manisha Gaurav and others.

Justice Singh’s 51 page judgement orders the BCECEB to pay a compensation of Rs. 20 Lakh each to the two petitioners –Manisha Gaurav and Adhishree; and a sum of Rs 10 lakh to Petitioner Dipty Preyasi.

The court justified the awarding of monetary compensation saying that the petitioners had been illegally and unconstitutionally denied their fundamental right to participate in the said counselling held on 7.10.2016.

Replying to the BCECEB stand that they were denied admission as they had already taken admission in the BDS course, the court further held that "the petitioners were wrongly denied to participate in the process of counselling on incorrect plea that their candidature ought not to have been considered, because they had taken admission in BDS course and they did not produce the original certificates. A stand taken by both the BCECEB and the Medical Council of India. “

The court further took the stand that ‘the two grounds taken were mutually inconsistent” as the original certificates had been admittedly taken by the BCECEB for their admission to the BDS course, and therefore, production of the same should not have bee insisted upon.

The Court also observed that "the MCI and the BCECEB could not take another stand that since the petitioners had already sought admission in the BDS course, therefore were not entitled to admission in the MBBS course against All India Quota seats. It further stated that the counselling for state seats and All India Quota seats are separate under regulations as noted above."

The court holding the two bodies responsible for the wrong committed stated that the present counselling was done under the orders of the Supreme Court. The Court further stated the MBBS seats were offered on the basis of merit position of respective candidates, and made available to the BCECEB by the Director General Health Services, Govt of India, which should have been the sole basis of counselling.

Meanwhile, Anshul, the counsel for the petitioners, had informed the court that all the petitioners had appeared for the national eligibility-cum-entrance test (NEET) (UG)-2016, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the result of which was published on August 16, 2016.

He told the court that the BCECEB advertisement announcing counselling for the remaining 15% All India Quota seats was published after the petitioners had been admitted to the BDS course.

He further said that the petitioners were denied candidature for counselling when they approached the officials, for the same, on the grounds that they were unable to produce their original certificates and that they had already been admitted to the BDS course . However, they had been given an application form that they had filled up.

Passing the order, Justice Singh also stated,"Pursuant to the Court’s order, the BCECEB filed an affidavit, bringing on record a list of 16 candidates allotted MBBS course on the basis of counselling for remaining 15%seats of all India quota from which it appears that the petitioners were ranked higher than the candidates allotted MBBS seats.”

Justice Singh said, “The petitioners, Manisha Gaurav and Adhishree are apparently much above in the merit position, which is evident from the comparative chart. There would have been no question of denial of their admission to MBBS course, had their candidature been entertained and had they been allowed to participate in the counselling on October 7”.

He said, “The denial by the respondents, particularly, the BCECEB, of rights of petitioners, in my opinion, is, thus, in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Since such breach cannot be remedied given the facts and circumstances of the case, the damage caused to them is enormous and will have to be compensated by issuing appropriate orders exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and they have to be compensated.”

Attached is the judgement below
hopal: The Advance Institute of Medical Science’s first year student batch is accusing the college administration, of demanding an alleged Rs. 4 lac over and above the Admission and Fee Regulation Committee( AFRC) recommended fee of Rs 5 lakh per year. The students expressed their protest against the demand here . The students have also alleged that despite repeated complaints made by them, no action has been taken by the Directorate of Medical Education(DME), and the Admission and Fee Regul...medical


[pdf-embedder url="http://education.medicaldialogues.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/HC-asks-Bihar-exam-board-to-pay-Rs-50-lakh-to-candidates-denied-NEET-2016-counselling.pdf1_.pdf"]