As per the reports, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB) denied three medical students to appear for NEET’16 counselling session held on October 7, 2016 against all-India quota seats. For this move, the board has been asked to provide a compensation of Rs 50 lakh to these aspirants.
A petition was initially filed by Manisha Gaurav, one of the three sufferers, in the Patna High Court. Further, the petitioners took part in the counselling session and were later on given admission in BDS course on the basis of merit list.
Anshul, the counsel for the petitioners in recent HT report mentioned that all the petitioners had appeared for the NEET UG 2016, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the result of which was published on August 16, 2016.
In response to the entire controversy, BCECEB released an official advertisement saying that while following the Supreme Court’s order of October 6, the counselling session for filling up of balance of 15 per cent all India quota seats remaining would be held on October 7 in the same year.
The petitioners, despite contacting the respondent official, were denied to sit for the counselling, with no valid reason.
Later, the officials’ said that once the petitioners accepted a seat in BDS course they could not be allowed to participate in counselling again.
Presently, Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh has passed the order on writ applications filed by Manisha Gaurav and others students and BCECEB has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs 20 lakh each to two petitioners – Manisha Gaurav and Adhishree – and a sum of Rs 10 lakh to petitioner Dipty Preyasi.
The Justice said, “Pursuant to the Court’s order, the BCECEB filed an affidavit, bringing on record a list of 16 candidates allotted MBBS course on the basis of counselling for remaining 15% seats of all India quota from which it appears that the petitioners were ranked higher than the candidates allotted MBBS seats.”
“The denial by the respondents, particularly, the BCECEB, of rights of petitioners, in my opinion, is, thus, in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Since such breach cannot be remedied given the facts and circumstances of the case, the damage caused to them is enormous and will have to be compensated by issuing appropriate orders exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and they have to be compensated,” continued Singh, as per the HT report.