VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2023 › High Court of Delhi

Vijender Kumar Gupta and Anr & v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
27 September 2023
Bench
Sanjeev Narulaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(CRL) 2547/2022

Judgment

SANJEEV NARULA, J. SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:27.09.2023 % LPA 665/2023 & CM APPL. 50495/2023, CM APPL. 50496/2023 DR RENUKA BULANI PRASAD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. SiddhamNahata and Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates. versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS IN MEDICAL SCIENCES NBEMS & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. The present Appeal is arising out of a judgment dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17332/2022 titled Dr. Renuka Bulani Prasad Vs. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) &Ors.(the "Writ Petition"), by which the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein (the "Impugned Judgement"). 2. The Appellant appeared for the Diplomate of National Board-Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test, 2022 on 24.07.2022 conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (the "Examination") seeking admission in a post-graduate specialty course in anesthesiology (the "Specialty Program"). On 24.08.2022, the results of the Examination were declared, and the Appellant secured 205 (two hundred five) marks out of a maximum of 480 (four hundred eighty) marks, thereby securing a Specialty Specific Merit Position ("SSMP") of 90 (ninety). Accordingly, on the basis of the SSMP secured by the Appellant, it is stated that admission into the counselling sessions in relation Specialty Program conducted by Respondent No. 1 was nearly certain. 3. The Appellant waited for necessary intimation in relation to the registration for the counselling process however it is alleged that no proper information was supplied. After a period of almost 2 (two) months after the declaration of the results of the Examination, the Appellant even contacted Respondent No. 1 via the telephone. Subsequently, pursuant to a complaint dated 6.11.2022, Respondent No. 1 via an email dated 11.11.2022 informed the Appellant that the registration and counselling process pursuant to the Examination had not started and that the Appellant would be intimated of the same in due course by email. 4. Later, the Appellant learnt that a notice dated 22.09.2022 was published on the website of Respondent No. 1 wherein it was stated that (i) the registration process pursuant to the Examination commenced on 30.09.2022 and closed on 05.10.2023; (ii) the final date of joining for a prospective candidate in the third round of admissions would be 22.11.2023; and (iii) the mop-up round of the registration and counselling process is discretionary and would depend on the number of vacant seats (the "Notice"). Aggrieved, the Appellant herein preferred the Writ Petition on 07.12.2022, however, Respondent No. 1 went ahead with the mop-up round of counselling for the academic year 2022-23 on 14.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 respectively. 5. Vide the Impugned Judgement, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition observing inter alia that Clause 2.4 and Clause 4.1 of the Handbook for Admission to DNB (Post Diploma) Courses Admission Session (the "Handbook") read with the Notice categorically stated that registration for the counselling process would take place on a designated website of Respondent No. 1; and that only those candidates who have registered but not been allotted a seat during the first 3 (three) rounds of counselling shall be eligible to participate in the mop-up rounds. In this context, the Learned Single Judge held that as the Appellant herein completely missed the relevant date of and accordingly, in the absence of registration for counselling, the question of grant of relief to the Appellant herein could not arise. In this regard, it was observed that the Appellant herein was not entitled to relief on account of her failure to adhere to the instructions contained in the Handbook, in the absence of any mala fide or arbitrary action by Respondent No. 1

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.