NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought replies from the Centre, National Medical Commission (NMC), and others on a plea filed by a batch of students seeking fresh counselling of all India quota (AIQ) round 3 of NEET-PG 2024.
A two-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran issued notices to UOI, NMC, and others, sought their respective replies, and posted the matter for further hearing on February 7.
The petitioners, eligible for NEET-PG 2024 counselling, said round 3 of AIQ counselling for NEET-PG started before the second round could conclude in certain states.
The plea said that when round 2 counselling opened, they had the option to choose between the best options and leave the AIQ seat if they were getting a better seat in the next round of counselling.
“This created a grave prejudice to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates since they were deprived of the seats which were blocked by the candidates from the states whose round 2 did not commence earlier,” the plea said.
The plea said that blocking seats led to many meritorious eligible candidates ended up losing their seats.
The petitioners alleged that the respondents’ act was inconsistent with the schedule of NEET-PG counselling laid down by the apex court.
The petitioners said that this created a grave prejudice against them and the placed candidates since they were deprived of the seats, which were blocked by the candidates from the states whose Round 2 did not commence earlier.
Also in top court
NIA Act: Nod to appeal beyond 90-day limit
The appeals of accused or the victims under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, should not be dismissed solely on the ground that delays beyond 90 days could not be condoned, the top court said on Tuesday. The bench was hearing pleas challenging the validity of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act.
Pleas against tweaks to UAPA dismissed
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a batch of pleas challenging the amendments in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It said the petitioners must approach the jurisdictional high courts first. “We cannot be the court of first instance ... Let it be first decided by the high court,” a three-judge bench said.