Anu Sivaraman, J
1. These writ petitions are filed seeking substantially the same reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.No.2989/2025 are as follows:-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the final allotment of Mop-Up
round of counseling of the PG-NEET 2024 conducted by the respondent No.2 Karnataka Examinations Authority as null and void, only with
respect to the NRI/Management (Q-Category) category seats; and
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
prepare a list of vacant/unallotted seats under the NRI Category and Management/Q-Category seats that have remained vacant before
conduct of the mop-up round of counseling and thereafter to conduct afresh the mop-up round of counseling of the PG NEET-2024 by the
Karnataka Examinations Authority; and thereafter to allot seats to the petitioner in terms of the inter-se merit under the NRI Category; and
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the
case; in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The writ petitioners contend that they are the NRI candidates aspiring for NEET PG Seat in pursuance to the KEA Notification for the year 2024-
2025. It is contended that though NRI Category candidates were available for the selection, the KEA had de-categorized the unfilled, in-service and
NRI Quota Seats in the second round of counseling itself which had denied a chance to NRI candidates to be selected against the NRI Quota Seats.
It is contended that pursuant to the Notification dated 15.01.2025, calling for PG Medical candidates, who became eligible for admission due to the
lowering of eligibility criteria, the applicants had participated in the allotment procedure. The brochure issued by the KEA specifically provided that
NRI Quota Seats would be allotted to NRI candidates and the petitioners were also permitted to submit options in the NRI Quota. However, by de-
categorization which has been carried out by the KEA without any provision for the same, either in the brochure or in the Karnataka Selection of
Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 ('2006 Rules' for short), which have been made
specifically applicable to the selection by the brochure in question. The petitioners have lost their opportunity for admission to NRI Quota Seats for
which they are eligible. The representations have been submitted before the KEA in this regard which was not considered by the KEA.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the petitioner being permitted to enter options in the NRI Quota to all available NRI
Category Seats. The refusal to consider his options to those seats which are specifically notified as NRI seats in the mop-up round is illegal and
unsustainable. It is further contended that the de-categorisation of the NRI Quota Seats as Management Seats have not been notified to the eligible
candidates in the KEA web portal and that this vitiates the mop-up round of counselling. It is contended that in the absence of any provision in the
2006 Rules for converting of NRI Seats to Management Seats or any such power reserved to the KEA in the brochure, the said procedure was
wholly illegal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that non-consideration of petitioner's representation by respondent before allotment of
seats in mop-up round of PG-NEET counselling is arbitrary. Petitioner is eligible to allotment of the PG-Medical seats under the NRI category.
Documents submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized and verified by the KEA and satisfied with the credential of the petitioners, they were
permitted to participate in mop-up round of counselling under NRI category.
5. It is further contended that the KEA has not allotted the vacant NRI category seats of the first and second round to candidates under the NRI
category in the mop-up counseling, the said action of KEA is arbitrary and illegal. KEA has not de-categorized the counseling process and allotment of
seats is done in terms of the reservation policy for third mop-up round of counseling. Hence, actions of the KEA is arbitrary and illegal. In terms of the
Notification issued by KEA, 100 of vacant seats under NRI category have remained vacant after first and second round of counseling and that the
petitioner is eligible to participate in the third round of counseling and select such vacant seats. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of
permission for allotment of NRI category seats in the third round of counseling is praying for issue of appropriate directions to the authorities. The
action of KEA is arbitrary and illegal. The act of the KEA will affect the career of the petitioner and will result in loosing opportunities. KEA ought to
have allotted the said vacant seats to the petitioner in order of preference in the option list entered by the petitioner.
6. Statement of objections is placed on record in W.P.No.2989/2025 by the second respondent - KEA stating that the petitioner whose NEET All
India Ranking is 177251 had become eligible to participate in the counselling only after the MCC lowered the percentile of eligibility in NEET to 15%
on 04.01.2025. It is contended that on becoming eligible due to lowering of the eligibility criteria he got his documents verified on 18.01.2025 for
appearance in the mop-up round of counselling. It is contended that there were 431 NRI seats available for allotment where the counselling process
started. But the total number of students registered under the NRI category in the first instance was only 328. In the first and second round of
counselling, a total of 184 NRI seats were filled up and the rest of the seats remained vacant. Therefore, as contemplated in Section 9 of the
Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission and
Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, the unfilled seats were de-categorised as Management Quota Seats and offered for allotment in the second round
itself.
7. It is further submitted that the second round of counselling was held between 17.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 and it was only thereafter that the writ
petitioner became eligible due to reduction of the eligibility percentile to 15% as notified by the MCC on 06.01.2025. The mop-up round option entry
was held between 20.01.2025 and 23.01.2025. In the seat Matrix, there were 6 cancelled NRI seats were included and offered for NRI students who
have taken the cancelled seats in the mop-up round of counselling. It is submitted that the petitioner was not allotted any seat only on account of his
low ranking.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the de-categorised seats have all been taken by persons having
higher marks and ranks than the Writ Petitioners and that the Writ Petitioners who got eligibility to apply for the NRI Seats only pursuant to the
Notification dated 15.01.2025, long after the de-categorisation, cannot raise any contentions in that regard.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maha.
P and another v. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 18 SCC 63, has recognized the conversion of NRI seat owing to non-availability of students.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the contentions advanced.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NRI seats stand de-categorized and converted as Management Seats which has defeated
his rights. But we notice that the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the selection has occurred only by lowering of the eligibility of percentile by
the decision of the MCC dated 04.01.2025 which was notified on 06.01.2025. The petitioners submitted their application and credentials only on
18.01.2025. By that time, admittedly, the NRI seats stood de-categorized and offered as Management Seats.
12. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that the de-categorization is not supported by any provision in the brochure or the
Rules, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner who came into the picture for the first time pursuant to Notification dated 15.01.2025 cannot be
heard to contend that the de-categorization which occurred even before the eligibility of the petitioner, was illegal. Since the de-categorisation had
already occurred when the petitioners' eligibility arose, and since the mop-up round was held only for the de-categorised seats, the petitioners cannot
raise these contentions. It is further contended that no person who has a lower rank than the writ petitioner has been offered allotment in the
management quota seats. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the allotments at
this juncture without any of the candidates likely to be affected by the orders as sought for by him on the party array.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prayers are sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be granted. The writ petitions,
therefore fail. However, we also feel it appropriate to issue directions to the KEA and the State Government for future guidance.
14. In the result:-
(i) The writ petitions are disposed of.
(ii) It is appropriate to direct the KEA to include the specific provisions as to de-categorisation of seats, in the official brochure and to publicise such
de-categorisation if any, when it occurs, in future selections, so that the participants in the counselling process will be well aware of such actions of the
KEA well in advance.
(iii) The State Government as well as the Director of Medical Education are also directed to look into the said issues as stated above and to issue
necessary instructions while the brochures are being prepared by the KEA in future.
