Orissa High Court: In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the grant of a Government College MBBS seat, which would have certainly been granted had he not been prevented from participating in AIQ Mop-up Round and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round due to alleged technical glitch, the Division Bench of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ and Savitri Ratho, J. dismissed the petition saying that the question of the technical glitch was a disputed question of fact, hence, it was not inclined to enter into such a disputed question of fact in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for considering the petitioner’s claim for an award of compensation.
Background
The petitioner had secured an All-India Rank of 16,663, Category rank of 7185 and All-State Rank of 599. Petitioner’s case was that AIQ Counselling was to be conducted in 4 online rounds, namely, AIQ Round 1, AIQ Round 2, AIQ Mop-up Round and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the first and second round of Counselling. He contended that in the AIQ Mop-up Counselling Round, a technical glitch had occasioned on the web portal hosted by Medical Counselling Committee/ Respondent 2, which prevented the petitioner from selecting and locking the desired choices of medical institutes. Consequently, out of a total of 377 available medical institutes choices, the petitioner could select and lock the ‘0’ choice and this is how the petitioner stood disabled from participating in the AIQ Mop-up Counselling Round as well as the AIQ Stray Counselling Round.
He also submitted that candidates below the rank of the petitioner secured Government College seats based on the AIQ Mop-up Counselling Round. Hence, his right to be considered against the Government College MBBS seats stood infringed. He was admitted to a private college where he is paying an exorbitant sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh per year as tuition fee as against Rs.37,950/- per year tuition fee payable in the State Government Medical Colleges.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had been admitted to a UG course in a private institute namely, Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar. The Court also noted that respondent 2 in the counter affidavit denied the petitioner’s assertion that there was any glitch with the software. On the said scheduled date more than 36,402 participating candidates had successfully filled and locked their choices.
The Court said that the question of the technical glitch was a disputed question of fact, hence, the Court said that it was not inclined to enter into such a disputed question of fact in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for considering the petitioner’s claim for an award of compensation.
[Aryan Swarup Parida v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No.35926 of 2022, decided on: 15-01-2025]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
