<p>The High Court has rejected a petition filed by an MBBS seat aspirant who sought permission to participate in the mop-up round after surrendering the seat allotted in the second round of counselling.</p>.<p>The student petitioner claimed that he surrendered the NRI category seat allotted in the second round on account of financial reasons.</p>.<p>Hailing from Kalagi village in Chitapur taluk of Kalaburagi district, the petitioner was not allotted a seat in the first round of counselling. However, he was allotted an NRI category seat in the second round at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru. At his request, the petitioner was permitted to surrender the seat on March 12.</p>.<p>Subsequently, he moved a representation to the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) requesting an opportunity to participate in the mop-up round. However, the authorities rejected the representation, citing eligibility criteria and conditions contained in the information bulletin.</p>.<p>The petitioner contended that rule 10 (6) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 permits him to participate in the mop-up and any subsequent round of counselling as he had surrendered the seat and not taken admission to the course. </p>.<p>The advocate for the respondent KEA submitted that the amended rule 10 of the 2006 Rules says that the government may by order cancel and seat selection made under these rules, for the reasons specified therein, the information bulletin stated- “candidates who have been allotted any medical seats either in the first round (choice 1 and 2) or in the second round are not eligible to participate. </p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice Alok Aradhe, said that the amended rules, coupled with stipulations contained in the information bulletin issued by the KEA do not permit the student to participate in the subsequent rounds.</p>.<p>“In the absence of any challenge to the information bulletin, the same binds the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly was allotted a seat in the second round of counselling. The stipulation contained in the information bulletin bars the participation of the petitioner in subsequent rounds of counselling,” the bench said. </p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The High Court has rejected a petition filed by an MBBS seat aspirant who sought permission to participate in the mop-up round after surrendering the seat allotted in the second round of counselling.</p>.<p>The student petitioner claimed that he surrendered the NRI category seat allotted in the second round on account of financial reasons.</p>.<p>Hailing from Kalagi village in Chitapur taluk of Kalaburagi district, the petitioner was not allotted a seat in the first round of counselling. However, he was allotted an NRI category seat in the second round at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru. At his request, the petitioner was permitted to surrender the seat on March 12.</p>.<p>Subsequently, he moved a representation to the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) requesting an opportunity to participate in the mop-up round. However, the authorities rejected the representation, citing eligibility criteria and conditions contained in the information bulletin.</p>.<p>The petitioner contended that rule 10 (6) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 permits him to participate in the mop-up and any subsequent round of counselling as he had surrendered the seat and not taken admission to the course. </p>.<p>The advocate for the respondent KEA submitted that the amended rule 10 of the 2006 Rules says that the government may by order cancel and seat selection made under these rules, for the reasons specified therein, the information bulletin stated- “candidates who have been allotted any medical seats either in the first round (choice 1 and 2) or in the second round are not eligible to participate. </p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice Alok Aradhe, said that the amended rules, coupled with stipulations contained in the information bulletin issued by the KEA do not permit the student to participate in the subsequent rounds.</p>.<p>“In the absence of any challenge to the information bulletin, the same binds the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly was allotted a seat in the second round of counselling. The stipulation contained in the information bulletin bars the participation of the petitioner in subsequent rounds of counselling,” the bench said. </p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
