Published on: 7 August 2023 at 12:28 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to review the case of a medical aspirant who qualified for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG)-2023 (NEET) but was not included in the final category list of KEAM-2023.
The exclusion was based on the ground that the student did not upload her NEET (UG) Scorecard.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan instructed the concerned authority to make appropriate decisions in the matter within one week.
The petitioner stated that she had submitted all mandatory documents and additional certificates, including the Nativity Certificate, CBSE marks statement Cum Certificate, Minority Certificate, Non-creamy layer certificate, Income Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and more.
Despite completing all formalities mentioned in the prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to professional degree courses, her name was not included in the final category list.
Upon inquiry, she learned that her exclusion was due to not submitting the NEET Scorecard. However, the petitioner argued that the prospectus did not mention the requirement for the scorecard submission.
The 3rd respondent (Commissioner for Entrance Examinations) ought to have mentioned the details regarding the submission of the NEET scorecard to the 3rd respondent to KEAM-2023, in Exhibit P3 prospectus itself.
Therefore, in the above circumstances, the petitioner is not aware of the submission of the NEET scorecard to the 3rd respondent.
In the above circumstances, the non-stipulation of submission of the NEET scorecard in Exhibit P3 prospectus illegal, unfair, bad, unreasonable and to be interfered with by this Honourable Court, the petitioner argued.
The petitioner was disappointed that her request to submit the Exhibit P1 scorecard and be included in the existing rank list was not considered by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.
She expressed concern that this could result in losing a year and adversely impact her future.
In light of these concerns, the High Court ordered the authority to reconsider the student’s request.
The State was represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu and Government Pleader P.G. Pramod, while Advocate Jestin Mathew represented the petitioner.