Jigyasa Tiwari (Minor) vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was neither eligible nor possessed the desired qualification for consideration under the 1% quota for the NCC category, as earmarked in the Government Order dated 17.06.2019 and the NEET UG Counseling-2019 Brochure. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had not obtained the requisite NCC 'C' Certificate with 'BEE' Grade. The Court further stated that prescribing qualifications is primarily the role of the employer and rule-making authority, and it is not for the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to assume that function. The Court also found that the petitioner's continued participation based on an interim order did not create any equity or sympathy in her favor. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner had "blown hot and cold and approbated and reprobated at the same time," indicating an inconsistency in her stance. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, a minor medical intern, filed a writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic session 2019-2020. The Government Order dated 17.06.2019 and the NEET UG Counseling-2019 Brochure prescribed specific age and educational qualifications. The petitioner claimed to have passed the Intermediate Examination in 2019 and obtained an NCC 'B' Certificate with 'BEE' Grading. The petitioner sought judicial affirmation of her eligibility deficiency and continuation in the course on a makeshift arrangement. The core of the dispute revolved around the petitioner's qualifications in relation to the advertised eligibility criteria, particularly concerning the NCC quota.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having obtained an NCC 'B' Certificate with 'BEE' Grading, is eligible for admission under the 1% quota for NCC candidates as stipulated in the Government Order dated 17.06.2019 and the NEET UG Counseling-2019 Brochure, thereby turning on the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for the NCC category. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that her qualifications met the requirements for admission. (Specific arguments not detailed in the provided text). Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner did not possess the required NCC 'C' Certificate with 'BEE' Grade, rendering her ineligible for the NCC quota. They also argued that the prescription of qualifications is primarily the role of the employer and rule-making authority, not the Court. Furthermore, they contended that mere continuation on an interim order does not create equity, and the petitioner had acted inconsistently by challenging the criteria after participating in the process.