The Supreme Court issued a notice in a plea filed by a medical aspirant for MBBS and BDS course, unable to secure place in counselling as he had mistakenly wrote ‘No’ in the form, against entry, whether he is domicile of State of MP. As a result, he was unable to secure place in State merit list, despite being a domicile of MP, alleging it drastically impacted his fate.
According to the petitioner, he had inadvertently committed the error.
A two-judge bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant today heard the matter and issued Notice returnable in two-weeks. Advocate Suyash Mohan Guru appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
After getting the scorecard of the NEET Test when the petitioner was required to fill up the counselling form, he committed an inadvertent mistake and in front of the relevant entry whether he belongs to M.P. Domicile, he mentioned in capital letters as ‘No’. As a result, the merit list treated the petitioner as a candidate not belonging to M.P. Domicile.
The petitioner in the writ petition, Madhya Pradesh High Court submitted that if he would have treated to be a candidate having M.P. Domicile his chances to get a government institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be on a higher footing in comparison to a situation. The petitioner relied on (2016) 7 SCC 478 (Kedar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others) was relied upon to contend that the technical objection should not prevail over the purpose and object of the enactment and various other judgements.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the state had submitted before the High Court that the petitioner could have corrected his mistake as the last date was 21.01.2022 and the petitioner submitted his form on 23.12.2021. He also contended that when the language of Rule 6 is absolutely clear which prohibits any correction, the high Court is under no obligation to pass an order which runs contrary to statutory Admission Rules.
The High court had observed, “This judgment makes the legal position clear like a cloudless sky. If the constitutionality of a Rule is not called in question, by adopting an interpretative process, we cannot defeat the plain language and purpose of the Rule. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that present defect was curable and Rule is not coming in the way of the petitioner.”
Case Name- Madhav Sharma Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh