Introduction:

In the case of Aryan Swarup Parida v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 35926 of 2022), the Orissa High Court recently declined relief to a NEET-UG 2022 candidate who alleged that a technical glitch during the All-India Quota (AIQ) Mop-up Round counselling process deprived him of an opportunity to secure admission to a government medical college. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri R Ratho, ruled that the issue involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Aryan Swarup Parida, sought a writ directing the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to allot him an MBBS seat in a government medical college, claiming that a technical glitch prevented him from locking his preferences during the AIQ Mop-up Round.

Background of the Case:

The petitioner secured an All-India Rank of 16,663 and a category rank of 7,185 in NEET-UG 2022 but was unsuccessful in AIQ Rounds 1 and 2 of counselling. He alleged that during the AIQ Mop-up Round, a technical error in the MCC’s portal prevented him from selecting and locking choices for medical colleges, rendering him ineligible to participate in the subsequent Stray Vacancy Round. This exclusion, he contended, allowed candidates with lower ranks to secure government MBBS seats that would otherwise have been allotted to him. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., which permits post-cut-off date admissions in exceptional cases where candidates are deprived of seats due to no fault of their own.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that his exclusion from the AIQ Mop-up and Stray Vacancy Rounds was not due to his negligence but a technical issue on the MCC’s portal. He stated that the failure to select and lock preferences was not deliberate, as he had been diligently participating in the counselling process. He further argued that candidates with ranks lower than his were able to secure MBBS seats in government colleges, which he was entitled to if not for the alleged glitch. Referring to the S. Krishna Sradha case, the petitioner asserted that the Court should intervene in such exceptional circumstances to ensure fairness and justice.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The MCC, represented by Central Government Counsel Mr Biswajit Moharana, strongly denied the petitioner’s claims of a technical glitch. It argued that over 36,402 candidates successfully participated in the AIQ Mop-up Round on the same day, with no reported systemic issues affecting the portal. The MCC maintained that the petitioner’s inability to lock preferences was due to user error, not a technical failure. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s claim lacked merit, as the counselling process had been conducted transparently and by established norms. They further argued that the Court should not intervene in matters involving disputed factual issues in a writ petition.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Court observed that the primary issue in the case revolved around whether the petitioner’s inability to lock preferences during the AIQ Mop-up Round was due to a technical glitch on the MCC’s portal. Noting that this was a disputed question of fact, the Bench held that it could not adjudicate on such matters under Article 226. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not suited for resolving factual disputes requiring detailed evidence and investigation.

The Division Bench also took into account the MCC’s argument that the counselling process was conducted seamlessly for over 36,000 candidates on the same day. In the absence of substantive evidence to support the petitioner’s claim of a technical glitch, the Court deemed the petitioner’s plea speculative. Additionally, the Court referred to the principles established in S. Krishna Sradha, clarifying that such exceptional relief is granted only in cases where the candidate’s claim is substantiated and the circumstances warrant intervention to prevent injustice.

The Court concluded that it was not appropriate to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, as doing so would require delving into disputed factual issues that fell outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Bench reiterating that admissions to professional courses must adhere to established processes and timelines to ensure fairness and transparency.