Principle Of Legitimate Expectation Not Applicable: Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Of Student Who Got Excluded In Central Pool Quota
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by a student who was excluded in the Central Pool Quota by virtue of him being a PMRBP (Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar) awardee.
The Court said that the principle of legitimate expectation has no application in such case.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar remarked, “In the present case, based on the acts of bravery displayed by him, the petitioner may have been able to state that he had a legitimate expectation to obtaining a bravery award. The hope that because of having obtained the bravery award or the PMRBP awardee, the petitioner would figure in the Central Pool quota is, however, merely a hope and not an expectation. … The principle of legitimate expectation, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case.”
Advocate Sudipta Basu represented the petitioner while CGSC Rakesh Kumar represented the respondents.
In this case, as per the Central Pool MBBS/BDS Seats Allocation Scheme (CPMSA Scheme), students who passed the NEET-UG examination belonged to certain specified categories being placed in the Central pool. As per the guidelines for the seats, PMRBP winning children were entitled to be part of the Central Pool under the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD). In 2020, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) informed the petitioner student that the quota for PMRBP awardees in the scheme had been discontinued and that the seats allocated in this regard had been surrendered to the MoHFW.
The results of NEET(UG) 2022 exam were notified in 2022 and the petitioner scored 85.56%. He applied to MoWCD for nomination of his name against Central Pool MBBS seats for the academic year 2022-23. However, he was informed that the quota for the same has been discontinued. Hence, The petitioner’s simple case was that the pre-existing quota for PMRBP awardees in the Central Pool for allocation of MBBS/BDS seats should continue. Therefore, he approached the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “In the present case, it is not as though there was any enforceable right in the petitioner to be included in the Central Pool quota by virtue of his being a PMRBP awardee. There being no such enforceable right, and no promise to the effect having been held out by the respondents, the decision not to continue reservation for PMRBP awardees in the Central Pool quota cannot be said to be vulnerable to judicial interference.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Kunwar Divyansh Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3518)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sudipta Basu
Respondents: CGSC Rakesh Kumar, Advocates Sunil, T. Singhdev, Bhanu Gulati, Ramanpreet Kaur, Abhijit Chakravarty, and Sourabh Kumar.
