Prescribe fresh quota for PG-NEET 2022: Karnataka HC

Highlights

• The Karnataka High Court has quashed a notification issued by the state government on reducing the quota and also the seat matrix for in-service candidates for PG-NEET examination 2022. The court observed that the quota was reduced from 30 per cent to 15 per cent without assigning any cogent reasons and was done in a casual and cavalier manner.

• “Needless to state that the state government shall be at liberty to prescribe the quota for in-service candidates afresh while taking into account relevant criteria and to fill up the seats,” said a division bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty.

• Allowing a batch of petitions filed by Dr Swathi K S and several others challenging the reduction of seats earmarked for in-service candidates for PG-NEET examination 2022, the court said that the relevant facts have not been considered by the state government while reducing the quota and the impugned notification dated October 6, 2022 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is arbitrary.

• The court also said that the only explanation offered on behalf of the government is that the number of seats are more than the number of candidates. However, the said reason is not forthcoming from the minutes of the meeting, dated September 29, 2022. The decision to reduce the quota has been taken to provide non in-service meritorious students to get the seat as per their merit. The said criteria is wholly irrelevant for reduction of seats, the court ruled.

• Further, the high court said that the relevant criteria is the number of seats as well as the number of in-service candidates who have qualified to participate in the counselling process. The in-service candidates need to have a better ratio of choice. For the preceding year, the ratio of choice for in-service candidates was better and the ratio of choice in respect of seats was 1:5, that is, one candidate had the option of choosing one out of five available seats, which has been reduced to this year to virtually 1:1, which means a candidate has to choose one seat which is available. Therefore, the quota was reduced without assigning any cogent reasons, the court observed.