Meghalaya High Court conditionally affirms Single Judge Order rescuing Medical Aspirant after her e-counseling Mail went to Spam Box [NEET-UG]

The Division bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has conditionally affirmed to the decision of the Single Judge Bench (Justice H.S. Thankhiew), who had provided relief to the NEET-UG Aspirant, whose e-counseling mail had landed in her ‘Spam Box’.

The bench observed that “when it was fairly obvious that if the writ petitioner had merely attended the e-counseling, she would have obtained the seat, and there is no reason to believe that the writ petitioner would have deliberately acted to her detriment, the window that opened up fortuitously permitted the exercise of the discretion by the writ court”.

Earlier, the Single Judge Bench of Justice H.S. Thankhiew had taken note that the petitioner was not aware of the link for e-counseling as the same did not appear in the inbox of her e-mail. And, she discovered that the link sent by NEIGRIMS for the e-counseling had landed in her Spam Box, after the initial round of e-counseling.

The petitioner did not participate in the initial counseling and was duly marked as absent. Upon such initial e-counseling, 14 of the 18 seats reserved for the relevant category to which the writ petitioner belongs were filled up and a notice was issued for further e-counseling to be held on March 7, 2022, for the remaining four seats in the category.

On March 9, 2022, the writ court had directed that the case be kept on hold to await the final acceptance of the seats for which the candidates would have to indicate their preference by March 11, 2022. On March 14, 2022, when the matter was taken up again. The writ petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the fourth of the remaining four candidates did not report for the e-counseling as he had already secured admission elsewhere.

Upon being satisfied, the Writ Petitioner had been prevented from sufficient cause for tendering her candidature at the initial e-counseling, the Single Judge Bench directed, that the appellants shall facilitate counseling for the writ petitioner.

Thereafter, the appellant was directed to take into consideration the merit of the writ petitioner and complete the process of selection for the fourth seat immediately, keeping in mind that the session had already commenced.

The Main ground shown by the Appellants was that there is no dispute that the appellants had forwarded the information in time to the her and it is the petitioner who has had admitted that the mail sent by Appellants had gone to her Spam Box. The appellants submitted that the writ petitioner should have been vigilant as she could have got the information otherwise from the first appellant’s website as to the date of initial e-counseling.

The Appellants further argued, that when the candidate was careless and had missed the bus, other candidates in whom a right may have vested to participate in the process of obtaining a seat, could not have been prejudiced.

The High Court is of the view that ordinarily when there is no mistake on the part of an authority to do a thing that it was required to do, the indulgence shown to the writ petitioner as in this case may not have been warranted. However, in the circumstances, the last of the four remaining candidates did not opt for the final seat in the reserved category at NEIGRIHMS.

“There is no doubt that the wait-listed candidates would, thereupon, be offered a chance to apply for and obtain such seat. However, in such a scenario, no right is vested in the wait-listed candidates. In the peculiar facts of the case, the writ court exercised its discretion, particularly since no right had vested in any other, to allow the writ petitioner to be offered an opportunity to participate in a further process of counseling”, the court added. 

The court further added, that in an intra-court appeal, the element of interference with the discretion exercised is much more restricted than when appellate authority is exercised over orders emanating from the district judiciary. Accordingly, it held 

“There was an element of discretion available to the writ court, considering the peculiar facts of this case; and, though the fundamental principle that ought to have guided the writ court was that upon a default being committed by a candidate, whatever be the circumstances, the consequences of the default must rest with the candidate, since the last-placed candidate among the remaining four in this case, quite fortuitously, did not accept the seat, a window opened up for the writ petitioner which has been offered by the writ court in the exercise of its discretion. In the circumstances in which the discretion has been exercised, it cannot be said to be perverse. “

Resultantly, the court concluded by stating that, it does not appear that any right vested in any waitlisted candidate that has been prejudiced as a result of the impugned order, if any of the lodges a challenge and succeeds, the consequences have to be borne by the writ petitioner. To such extent, the writ petitioner’s admission, if at all, will be provisional for a period of six months from the date.

Case Title: North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institution of Health vs. Bisakha Goenka and Medical Sciences & Anr.