Desire for specific college admission cannot override established admission rules – Status retention form submission bars participation in subsequent rounds.

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that: a) Rule 13(f) bars category shifts within the same college and course, preserving the seat allocation process’s integrity (Para 18). b) Status retention form submission is an irrevocable act disqualifying candidates from further admission rounds (Para 23, 24). c) Women’s reservation within the HA category takes precedence, justifying the seat allocation to Respondent No.6 (Para 21).

The Court emphasized the importance of finality in the admission process and adherence to statutory rules, rejecting attempts to displace admitted candidates based on preferences post-allotment (Para 26, 27).

MAJOR ACTS:

1. Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 (Act of 2015) – Applied to government and corporation medical colleges for centralized admission through Common Entrance Test (CET) (Para 17).

2. Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full-Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2016 (Rules of 2016) – Rule 13(f) prohibits category change within the same college/course once seat is allotted (Para 17, 18).

3. NEET-UG Information Brochure, 2024 – Clauses 9.4.7 and 9.4.9 prioritize women’s reservation over general category within specified reservations like Hilly Area (HA) (Para 20, 21).

SUBJECTS: Admission Process – Seat Allotment – Reservation Rules – Status Retention – Hilly Area Category – Women Quota – NEET-UG

FACTS:

1. Nature of Litigation – Writ petition filed by a minor student seeking transfer from Government Medical College, Nagpur, to Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai, under Hilly Area (HA) Open Category.

2. Remedy Sought – Direction for transfer or creation of an additional seat; alternatively, for dislodgment of a lower-ranked candidate from the preferred college (Para 7).

3. Reason for Filing – Alleged improper seat allocation under HA Open Women Category leading to denial of seat in preferred college despite higher rank (Para 6).

4. Prior Decisions – State CET Cell upheld existing seat allotment rules; Petitioner’s representations for correction were rejected (Para 6, 7).

ISSUES:

1. Whether Rule 13(f) of the Rules of 2016 prohibited shifting a candidate’s category within the same college and course.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s submission of a status retention form barred participation in subsequent admission rounds.

3. Whether reservation for women within the Hilly Area category took precedence over general HA category seats.

SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS:

a) Petitioner – Contended that the seat allotment process was flawed and violated merit-based selection. b) Respondent (State CET Cell) – Asserted compliance with established rules, including prohibition on changing categories post-allotment and finality of status retention forms (Para 9, 10, 15). c) Respondent (Admitted Candidate) – Defended allocation under HA Women Category as per reservation rules (Para 13, 14).