Government of India Decisions on NEET :september
It further noted that it is "sad as the state of Goa and its functionaries have allowed ingress of systemic anarchy, throwing propriety to the winds, possibly harbouring the attitude of utter indifference and nurturing an incurable propensity to pave the path of deviancy".
The SC held that after it passed the judgment on July 18, protecting the interests of NEET students, the (state) additional secretary (health) on July 25, conveyed the decision of cancellation of provisional admissions given to the students on the basis of NEET merit. The SC termed this decision as "some kind of infantile wisdom which may, in different terminology, be called depraved sense of egocentric knowledge".
The court lashed out, "A deliberate labyrinth which not only assaults the majesty, sanctity and purity of law, but also simultaneously creates a complex situation requiring this court to intervene in a different manner to redeem the situation as far as possible so that there is some sanguine cathartic effect."
State quota to be filled under PG rules:
The Supreme Court said that none of these candidates shall be allowed to encroach upon the streams that have already been allotted to the petitioners who were admitted having been qualified in the NEET examination, the SC held.
Regarding some unfilled seats due to leaving of students, the court said that if the vacancies have occurred, the same can also be filled up on the basis of merit stipulated under the rules.
During the hearing of the case, senior counsel appearing for the Goa government, submitted that NEET, having been declared ultra vires, the acceptance or non-acceptance by the state government has to pale into insignificance. He further said that the state government, keeping the high court order in view wherein it was mentioned that admission should be provisional, had issued the order of cancellation of the admissions given to the successful NEET candidates.
Dealing with the argument of the state government, the apex court said that when the matter was before the SC, the HC should not have entertained and passed any order. The SC bench said that the problem, to some extent, has been created by the interim order passed by the HC. "Yet we are obliged to state that the order of the HC is also quite clear to the effect that interim order was subject to further orders that may be passed by it depending upon the order passed by the SC. Thus, the order passed by the HC was a guarded one," the bench said.
m m
ReplyDelete