- (1.) The petitioners have complained that the admission process undertaken by the respondent no.5 is not transparent and that, candidates have been admitted to the M.B.B.S course not following the merit of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors.-V-State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2016 AIR(SC) 2601 in support of the contention the respondent no.5 should maintain transparency in the process of admission. He has relied upon Medical Council of India Regulation 1977 and has submitted that the NEET results are relevant for the purpose of admission of a student. He has referred to the website of the respondent no.5 and submitted that, the details with regard to the first round of counselling are not transparent. The website of the college does not show the relevant data so as to counter check the NEET position obtained by a candidate considered for the purpose of admission. He has also referred to the admission procedure and the schedule laid down with regard thereto in the 1977 Regulation and has submitted that the respondent no.5 should adhere to it.
(2.) The learned advocate for the Medical Council of India has submitted that the respondent no.5 should be directed to complete the admission process within the time schedule prescribed by the 1977 Regulation by September 30, 2016. The senior learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 has submitted on instructions that the relevant data for the purpose of checking whether a candidate named in the list for admission has obtained the relevant NEET rank would be uploaded in the website of the respondent no.5 by 4 p.m. today. In view of the pending litigations, the respondent no.5 had extended the completion of the first round of counselling till September 10, 2016. They would be adhering to the schedule of the admission as laid down by the 1977 Regulation hereinafter. He has submitted that the college does not have the management quota and that, the college has given the requisite details. However, in order to meet the desire of the Court, the respondent no.5 is willing to give further details as may be directed. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
(3.) The writ petition was taken up for hearing on September 7, 2016 when a list of candidates proposed to be admitted by the respondent no.5 along with certain details were made over to the Court on behalf of the respondent no.5. A copy of such list was also made over to the learned advocate for the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner was requested to identify any five serial numbers from such list in order to check the veracity of the details of such list. The learned advocate for the petitioner was also permitted to look into such details of such five candidates and to verify whether the NEET rank given in the list was correct or not. The learned advocate for the petitioner has done so.;