- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 35527 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: DR. SHIVANI AGED 25 YEARS D/O MEGHARAJ K R/O NO 430, 8TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHNAGAR BENGALURU -576 019. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110 007 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) 18TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD, Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 MALLESWARA-560 012 BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, KR ROAD, FORT BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R4 SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ONE SEAT IN THE CATEGORY 1 G IN M.D. ANAESTHESIA (COURSE D4) IN THE KODAGU INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, MADIKERI, ALLOTTED IN THE SECOND ROUND OF COUNSELLING TO THE CANDIDATE HAVING THE RANK OF 27142 WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2024 AND ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contention of the petitioner is that the seats which were allotted in the first and second round of counseling and which were given up by candidates who opted for bettering their options in the following rounds had not been specifically notified in the later rounds and that the petitioner, therefore, lost a chance to opt for the vacant seats. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had a rank of 34392 in the NEET 2024 examination conducted for PG seats admission in PG NEET in 2024-25. It is submitted that an MD Anaesthesia seat in Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri has been allotted in the second round of counseling to a candidate having rank No.27142. It is submitted that the seat was not notified in the seat matrix in the mop-up round and had the seat been - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 notified, the petitioner would have had a chance to opt for the same. It is contended that the petitioner had participated in the further rounds of counseling and had been allotted a seat in MS Orthopaedics and that the surviving prayer therefore is that the vacant seats must be shown in the seat matrix so as to allow all eligible candidates to opt accordingly. 4. A memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner producing the details of the seats shown in the seat matrix in support of the contentions that all seats, especially virtual seats, have not been shown in the seat matrix while the mop-up round and stay vacancy round was conducted by the KEA. 5. A detailed statement of objections has been placed on record by the learned counsel for respondent No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner's NEET ranking was 34392 in the PG NEET selection for the year 2024-25. It is submitted that the candidate having a rank of 13925 was allotted the seat in MD Anaesthesia in the Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri under 1G category in the first round; the said person paid the fees and participated in the second round of counseling - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 exercising "choice No.2" to which provides that the candidate can hold on to the seat allotted and participate in the next round. It is submitted that, thereafter in the second round, the candidate having ranking 13925 bettered her option and the seat became available and was allotted to the next higher ranked person who had submitted an option i.e., a person who had rank No.27142 under 1G category in the second round. 6. It is submitted that the candidate allotted the seat in the first round having opted "choice No.2" could have participated in the second round by holding the seat that has been allotted in the first round. It is submitted that, if the seat is upgraded in the second round, then the candidate has to collect admission order and report to the College allotted in the second round and if no seat is allotted in the second round, then the earlier allotted seat will hold good in favour of that candidate. It is submitted that in the seat matrix of the second round dated 19.12.2024 only clear vacancy seats had been notified. However, as and when the higher ranked candidate who had exercised "choice No.2" accepts the allotment of the upgraded seat in the second round, the seat which thus - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 became vacant was allotted to the next merited candidate who had submitted an option to that seat in the second round itself. 7. It is submitted that since the seat has been allotted in accordance with the procedure to a person who had a rank of 27142, the petitioner who had a much lower rank i.e., 34392 cannot be aggrieved by the process in any manner. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 supports the contentions of the KEA. 8. The respondent No.2 has also placed a statement on record stating that the seats surrendered by candidates allotted in the first round have to be included in the seat matrix of the second round and have to be notified in the vacant seats. 9. However, in the instant case, as is clear from the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.3 that the candidate who had been allotted the seat in the first round had exercised choice No.2 and therefore, the seat would have fallen vacant only when the said person had taken the upgraded seat in the second round. Once the upgraded seat in the second round had been taken, the seat taken earlier falls vacant and the seat is allotted to the next merited candidate in the second - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12071-DB WP No. 35527 of 2024 round itself. From a perusal of the information bulletin/brochure issued by the KEA, this procedure is in accordance with the prescription therein. We see no error in the procedure. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6