The Court, based on the document verification slip issued by KEA to the petitioner, noted that the NOC had indeed been submitted.
KEA argued that the NOC was for a different course, but the Court opined that KEA should have rejected the NOC instead of recording its submission. Moreover, the Court suggested that KEA could have sought clarification from Jayadeva Institute, the college at which the petitioner completed his MBBS.
The Court further noted from the record that the cancellation letter was issued immediately after the candidate who was eventually allotted the seat, addressed a letter to DME. It also noted that a copy of the letter was sent to the petitioner seven days after it was written.
Additionally, based on a notification outlining rules for admission to PG medical courses, the Court observed that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Court also noted that instead of being made available in the next round of counseling, the seat was allotted to another person. In this context, the Court observed,
“The KEA has failed to demonstrate as to how the seat was allotted to the sixth respondent in the second round of counselling without there being any seat available.”
Source: Barandbench
