* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5517/2011 and CMs 11249/2011 & 19191/2011 Reserved on: 06.01.2012 Date of decision: 12.01.2012 IN THE MATTER OF RUCHIKA DUGGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Mr. Vikram Saini and Mr. Vikas Saini, Advocates versus AIIMS AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Babbar and Mr. Sheikh Faraz Iqbal, Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action of the respondents No.1 and 2/All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in cancelling the first round of counselling held on 15.07.2011 for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course, Session August 2011, and the consequent selection letters issued to successful candidates including the petitioner and thereafter, proceeding to undertake the process of re-counselling for the said course on 29.07.2011, wherein the petitioner was denied a seat in the aforesaid course.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in April 2011, respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS invited applications for admission in various degree courses including a two year post graduate course of M.Sc. (Nursing) for the session starting from August 2011. As per the prospectus circulated by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, there were a total of 18 seats for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course, out of which, 4 seats were reserved for the OBC candidates alone. The requirements for admission to the M.Sc. (Nursing) course were as below:-
"(i) B.Sc. (Hons.) Nursing/B.Sc. Nursing (Post-Certificate)/Post-Basic/B.Sc. Nursing (4 years) course from any recognised University, from an educational institution Recognised by the Indian Nursing Council, with 60% marks for Gen/OBC candidates (55% marks in case of SC/ST candidates).
(ii) Registration as Nurse, RN, RM (Registered Nurse, Registered Midwife) with any State Nursing Council."
3. The petitioner, who participated in the entrance examination held by respondent No.1/AIIMS on 26.06.2011, was declared successful and having obtained rank No.17 in the general category, she received a letter dated 05.07.2011 from respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS informing her that the first counselling would be held on 15.07.2011, and she was called upon to report alongwith her rank letter and all original certificates. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the first session counselling on 15.07.2011, and received a memorandum of even date informing her that she had been selected for admission to the M.Sc. (Nursing) (Psychiatric) course at respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, as per the discipline selected by her during the said counselling. She was also called upon to deposit the registration fee etc. by 05.08.2011 and collect her joining report on 01.08.2011.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately upon receiving the aforesaid memorandum dated 15.07.2011, granting her admission to the M.Sc. (Nursing) course, on 20.07.2011 she approached the M.M. University, Mullana (Ambala), where she had already secured admission in the M.Sc. (Nursing) course on 21.06.2011, with a request to cancel her admission and refund the fee deposited by her. However, before the petitioner could report to respondent No.1 and 2/AIIMS for joining the course on 01.08.2011, she received a letter dated 21.07.2011 from respondent No.1/AIIMS, informing her that the respondent No.2/Director, AIIMS had ordered cancellation of the counselling process held on 15.07.2011 for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course in various disciplines and he had also ordered cancellation of the selection letters issued to the candidates on 15.07.2011, due to some administrative reasons. The petitioner was further informed that re-counselling for M.Sc. (Nursing) course was re-scheduled for 29.07.2011 on the existing terms and conditions as per the earlier counselling letters issued on 05.07.2011. As a result, the petitioner was called upon to attend re-counselling held by respondent No.1 and 2/AIIMS on 29.07.2011. Having no choice in the matter, the petitioner appeared in the re-counselling on 29.07.2011, but this time, she was not offered a seat/admission and the last seat offered was to a candidate holding rank No.16, which was one rank above hers. Describing the aforesaid action of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS in denying the earlier allotted seat to the petitioner in the course of the re-counselling, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unwarranted, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 02.08.2011.
5. The present petition came up for hearing in Court on 03.08.2011, on which date, the same was renotified for 04.08.2011, with a direction to the Registrar, AIIMS to remain present in Court on 04.08.2011. On 04.08.2011, after taking into consideration the facts of the case, notice was issued to respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS and the counsel appearing on advance copy, was called upon to file the counter affidavit. While renotifying the matter to 12.08.2011, the Registrar, AIIMS was directed to find out some solution as to how the petitioner could be given a seat in the M.Sc.(Nursing) course in the same stream, i.e., Psychiatric. On 12.08.2011, some more time was sought by the counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to find a solution to the problem. Although the pleadings were completed by September 2011, and the matter came to be adjourned on various dates, but no suggestion came forth from respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to resolve the matter in terms of the orders dated 04.08.2011 and 12.08.2011.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, while the facts of the case are not disputed, it is averred that the first counselling was cancelled by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS in view of the reports in the media as well as complaints made by some of candidates that the method adopted to select candidates in the counselling held on 15.07.2011 was not proper and three OBC candidates, who were selected on their own merit, were not adjusted against general category seats and instead, they were given admission against the OBC category, which is contrary to the ratio of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 07.05.2010 in CA No.4310-4311/2010 entitled UOI vs. Ramesh Ram & Ors., which mandated that where a meritorious reserved candidate is able to obtain his/her preferred post by virtue of his/her ranking in the general list, he/she is not to be counted as a reserved candidate.
7. It was contended by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS that in view of the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the entire procedure of counselling held on 15.07.2011 was reviewed and it was found that one, Ms.Parvathy Joshy, an OBC candidate, who had secured rank No.3 in the general merit in the first counselling held on 15.07.2011, was allotted a seat in the Paediatrics discipline as per her preference, but due to an error on the part of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, the said candidate was adjusted against a reserved category seat for OBC. As a result of the above ommission, the entire counselling procedure had to be cancelled and re-counselling had to be conducted for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course on 29.07.2011. He submitted that in the process of re-counselling, the aforesaid OBC candidate, Ms. Parvathy Joshy, who got a seat on merits as a general candidate, opted for her choice of discipline as Cardiology/CTVS and she was adjusted as per her own merit against a general category seat in Cardiology/CTVS, which was duly accepted by her. Thereafter, the OBC candidates at ranks No.8 and 14, namely Ms. Sarita and Ms. Mohita Rani opted for the subjects of their choice, namely Cardiology and Paediatrics, respectively, but the said choices were available only in the OBC category, due to which, at the time of counselling, they were adjusted against OBC seats. The net result of the aforesaid re-counselling conducted on 29.07.2011 was that while the candidate at rank No.3 who was an OBC, but a meritorious candidate as per her ranking, was adjusted against a general seat and the candidates at ranks No.8 and 14 respectively were adjusted against OBC seats as per their choice of subjects, the last candidate in the list, namely, the petitioner herein, who was at rank No.17, could not get any seat in the re-counselling and, therefore, was not accommodated.
8. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Saini argued that in the entire process of counselling conducted by the respondent No.1/AIIMS, the petitioner could not be faulted in any manner and the action of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS in cancelling the first counselling held on 15.07.2011 and holding the re-counselling on 29.07.2011, is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as it has resulted in denying the allotted seat to the petitioner, thus taking away a vested right that had accrued in her favour. He contended that the aforesaid action of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS in denying a seat to the petitioner is hit by the principles of promissory estoppel for the reason that on the basis of the admission given by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 15.07.2011, she irretrievably changed her position to her disadvantage by getting cancelled the admission already secured by her in the M.Sc. (Nursing) course in a University situated at Ambala and even got the refund of the fee paid by her on 30.07.2011. In support of his submission that when it is a case where on account of an error/omission on the part of the respondents/authorities, candidates were wrongly admitted in different categories during the first counselling held for the M.Sc. Nursing Course, then the petitioner should not be made to suffer the consequences of the said act and directions ought to be issued to respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to accommodate her in the current academic year itself, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati reported as AIR 1983 SC 580, and the recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case, Tej Pal Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 174 (2010) DLT 510.
9. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and carefully examined their respective contentions as also the case law cited by them.
10. There is no dispute as to the facts of the case. It is an admitted case that the first counselling for allocation of seats for M.Sc. (Nursing) course for the academic session August 2011 was held by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS on 15.07.2011 and the petitioner, who is a general category candidate, had secured rank No.17 in the merit list and had opted for the discipline of Psychiatric, was duly selected for admission to the said course vide memorandum dated 15.07.2011. In W.P.(C) 4465/2011 entitled Ranjana Verma vs. AIIMS, the petitioner therein, who had 50% permanent disability being a physically handicapped person, had approached the Court and sought directions to the respondent/AIIMS to make appropriate provision of 3% reservation for the physically handicapped persons in the course of M.Sc. (Nursing) course for the August 2011 session, subject matter of the present petition. The respondent/AIIMS was duly represented in the aforesaid petition and on 15.07.2011, learned counsel made a statement that the process of admitting students in the M.Sc. (Nursing) course had been completed and any adverse order would upset the whole admission process. After considering the facts of the case, the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the settled legal position for challenging the criteria of the selection is that recourse to legal remedy should be taken at the earliest opportune time for the reason that with the change in the criteria or by passing of any order of the court, many other candidates could become eligible or ineligible for admission. As a result, while directing the respondent/AIIMS to take a decision on the issue of making a provision of 3% reservation in terms of Section 39 of the Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, for further admissions in the nursing course, the aforesaid petition was disposed of.
11. Within a period of one week from the date when the aforesaid stand was taken in the above proceedings, respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS issued a letter dated 21.07.2011, cancelling the entire counselling process held for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course on 15.07.2011 as also cancelling the selection letters issued to the successful candidates on the ground of some administrative reasons. Although the letter dated 21.07.2011 is silent as to the nature of the administrative reasons which weighed with respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to scrap the entire counselling process for the M.Sc. (Nursing) course and to recall the selection letters issued to the successful candidates, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, it has been reluctantly admitted that the Institution erred in making the selection of the candidates during the counselling process, due to which, an OBC candidate at rank No.3, who was selected on her own merits, was not adjusted against the general category and instead, was given admission in the OBC category, which was contrary to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra).
12. The aforesaid error committed on the part of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS has no doubt jeopardized the academic career of the petitioner. This is not a case, where the petitioner is in any way responsible for the predicament she finds herself in. Rather, the fault lies entirely at the door of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS. It cannot be denied that on the basis of the admission granted to her by respondents No.1 & 2/AIIMS, the petitioner withdrew the admission taken by her in the same course in some other University at Ambala, and she requested the said University to refund the fee deposited by her, thus irreversibly altering her position and if respondent No.1/AIIMS is permitted to renege from the promise of admission extended to her, vide Memorandum dated 15.7.2011, she shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, entirely to her detriment. The justification sought to be offered by the counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS that the Institute had wrongly interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra), which resulted in the petitioner being selected for the course, is unacceptable as a duty was cast on the respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to have sought necessary clarifications as to the exact position of law and thereafter meticulously scrutinize the application forms of the candidates before calling them to participate in the counselling. Having failed to take such measure at the right time, respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS cannot be permitted to react with such nonchalance by simply shrugging its shoulders in response to the plight of the petitioner. They were also duty bound to follow the mandate of law as settled by the Supreme Court and if a mistake has been committed by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS for which the petitioner is neither directly, nor indirectly responsible, then she cannot be made to suffer the consequences thereof. The lack of due diligence on the part of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS has left the petitioner in the lurch and exposed her to the vagaries of uncertainty.
13. The plea of estoppel stares the respondent No.1/AIIMS in its face and it cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong by taking a plea that it had erroneously admitted the petitioner after the first counselling due to a misunderstanding of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra) and, urging that they were well empowered to cancel the first counselling and hold the re-counselling. Respondent No.1/AIIMS has conveniently overlooked the fact that its aforesaid action has deprived the petitioner of a valuable right that had accrued in her favour and seriously prejudiced her. By holding that the petitioner was successful in the first counselling and proceeding to grant her admission in the M.Sc.Nursing Course on the premise that she was eligible for admission and following the issuance of the said memorandum, the petitioner having acted upon the same and having approached the University at Ambala for cancellation of the admission taken by her in the same course, the respondent No.1/AIIMS is estopped from negating the admission of the petitioner.
14. It may be emphasized that this is not a case where the petitioner can be accused of making a false statement and/or suppressing any relevant facts. Instead, it is respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS, who have not taken due care and caution in scrutinizing the application forms while drawing up the list of candidates for their participation in the counselling for the course in question. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that had respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS not admitted the petitioner to the course in question in terms of its letter dated 15.07.2011, she would have proceeded to study in the same course at the University at Ambala, where she had already secured a seat. However, on account of failure on the part of respondent no.1/AIIMS to have scrutinized the list of candidates carefully, not only has the petitioner been deprived of an opportunity to study in the institute, but she has also been left out in the cold as she has lost a golden opportunity to study the same course in another University where she had already secured a seat and had even deposited her fee. The long and short of it is that the petitioner is now placed in an unenviable position where she is likely to lose a precious year of academics on account of the sheer negligence on the part of respondent No.1/AIIMS. Respondent No.1/AIIMS cannot be permitted to trammel upon the dreams of the petitioner of attaining academic excellence when her only fault was a bonafide assumption on her part that the portals of a premium medical institution of the country had been opened for her. The shards of such a shattered dream cannot be permitted to pierce the psyche of the petitioner and permanently damage her. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the action of respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS in refusing a seat to the petitioner in the M.Sc. (Nursing) course and declaring that the admission list circulated pursuant to the first counselling qua the petitioner is void ab initio, is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and, therefore, liable to be struck down. Ordered accordingly.
15. The question which now arises for consideration of this Court is as to how to mould the relief. The suggestions made by the Court initially and as recently as on 05.01.2012, asking the respondents if any effort was made to find a solution to the vexed problem, have fallen on deaf ears. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS responded by plainly stating that all the seats in the M.Sc. (Nursing) course for the academic session 2011-12 had been filled up and there is no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner. Knowing very well that the aforesaid events, which have unfolded themselves in the course of the present proceeding reveal that the problems faced by the petitioner are entirely their creation, not only have respondents No.1 & 2/AIIMS remained stoic and non-responsive, they have simply washed their hands of the entire situation.
16. While there is no quarrel with the proposition that prescription of eligibility conditions to professional courses is a matter, which should be ordinarily left within the domain of academicians but in a case like the present one, where the candidate has been made to suffer on account of a lapse on the part of the respondents/authorities, the Court cannot remain a mute spectator. Rather, an obligation is cast upon the Court to intervene and undo the wrong. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that in the cause of furtherance of justice, the Court is empowered to come to the aid and assistance of the citizens to save them from the vagaries of administrative and executive action by issuing suitable directions so as to undo the wrong and minimize the injustice perpetrated on a citizen, who is not to be blamed for the circumstances, in which he/she finds himself in. In the case of Punjab Engineering College (supra), while finding fault with the procedure adopted by the concerned authorities in making spot admissions, the Supreme Court observed as below:-
"4. Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students, who are wrongly or purposefully left out. ....."
17. After making the aforesaid observations, directions were issued by the Supreme Court to the authorities to create additional seats to accommodate eligible candidates in the following manner:-
"6. It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admissions contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made."(emphasis added)
18. In another case, entitled M. Sreedevi vs. University of Health Services, A.P. and Ors. reported as (2002) 10 SCC 760, after taking note of the observations made by the High Court that had the authorities concerned recommended meritorious candidates from the category of SC, ST and backward classes in the open category, the appellant therein would have got selected as a reserved candidate and that she had suffered on account of the conduct of the University in not following the settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court and considering that, only costs were awarded by the High Court against the University, the Supreme Court held that the appellant therein could not be made to suffer for the error of the University and while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court, it was observed as below:-
"3. If it was the fault of the University, as the Division Bench found, it was proper to direct the University to make due amends. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment and order of this Court in C. Tulasi Priya v. A.P. State Council of Higher Education where also the University had committed a mistake to the detriment of the student and this Court directed that the student should be considered for admission to a medical college in the State in a seat from the quota of that State for the academic year in question upon the correct and not the mistaken basis.
xxx xxx xxx
6. The civil appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The University and its Admission Committee shall consider the candidature of the appellant for admission to a medical college within the province of the University from the quota of the State in the appropriate category for the academic year 2000-2001 on the basis of her merit."
19. Similarly, in the case of Tej Pal Yadav (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was confronted with a situation where the appellant had appeared for the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination held by the CBSE for admission to the 10% All India seats quota in the Medical Colleges all over the country and he was placed at Sr. No.3017 in the All India Rank and Counselling Category Rank of 2965 (OBC), and when he appeared for counselling, though seats in the general category were available on that date, yet the seats reserved for OBC category were filled up and the appellant was not considered for admission. After noticing that the appellant had secured 72.3% marks in the final examination and holding that he was entitled to be considered in the general category and not in the OBC category alone and, therefore, he was entitled to admission in the reserved category, while considering the manner in which the relief was to be granted to the appellant, the Division Bench referred to certain decisions in the field, including the judgment in the case of Punjab Engineering College (supra), Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of UP reported as (1995) 5 SCC 173, Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. reported as (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Vijay Jaimni vs. Medical Council of India & Ors. reported as (2005) 13 SCC 461 and held that the appellant therein should not be made to suffer and his career should not be given an indecent burial and accordingly, directed that he be admitted in the general category quota in the next academic year.
20. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 622/2009 entitled Dr. Manish Patnecha vs. Chairperson Counseling Committee, AIIMS, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vijay Jaimni (supra) and Harshali vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2005) 13 SCC 464 and held that the appellant therein having succeeded in showing that denial of admission to him in Nuclear Medicine in the OBC category was unjustified, directed the respondent to admit him to the same course in the next session.
21. In the case of P. Ranjitha vs. University Grants Commission & Ors. reported as 41 (1990) DLT 444, a Division Bench had held that no doubt it is true that in academic matters, Courts are normally reluctant to interfere, however, when interpretation of laws are involved and the Courts are called upon to decide the matter, it becomes the duty of the Courts to give a correct interpretation of law as it is and they should not be guided by the supposed intention of the provisions, when the interpretation does not involve any ambiguity or other interpretation. In this matter it was held that by taking admission to the course, the candidate therein had altered her position and if the respondent University is permitted to back out of the promise and the admission is interfered with, the candidate would definitely suffer injustice and detriment in that sense and in the circumstances, the action of the respondents in canceling the admission of the petitioner was quashed and the University and the college were restrained from preventing her from pursuing the course.
22. In the case of Kanishka Aggarwal vs. University of Delhi & Ors. reported as AIR 1992 Delhi 105, where the petitioner therein was allowed to complete the formalities of admission and subsequently, allowed to attend the classes though her admission was provisional, cancellation of admission later on was held by the Division Bench to be barred by estoppel. While relying upon a number of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, where interest of students were protected by the courts though they were found ineligible for admission, the Division Bench held as below:-
"35. Let us assume, the plea of estoppels is not available. Still, should the applicant be allowed to be thrown out "should we deprive him of the rainbow of today and make his tomorrow bleak, barren and ominous'. Whom shall we be serving thereby 'As inefficient, if not corrupt, system which has been spreading its fangs year after year'. The Rip Van Winkles who refused to come out of their deep slumber even in the face of the reverberations caused by loud protests of foul play and demand for CBI enquiry. 'Those who found it well nigh impossible to even transfer certain clerical staff in spite of pressing demand by teaching community'. Should we serve them or this innocent student who bought a dream with his time and money. 'He played no fraud. His only fault was his assumption that vistas of knowledge were being opened to him. Must he suffer for this innocence. 'Where lies his fault'. How much do we wish, somebody had whispered to the University: Un peu de charite, voyons."
23. In the case of Manoj Kumar vs. Jamia Milia University & Ors. reported as 1998 III AD (Delhi) 148, a Single Judge of this Court held that though the University had a right to correct a mistake, but it was not an unfettered right and if the mistake was committed by the University itself and the candidate was not directly or indirectly responsible for the said mistake, it was observed that correction of a mistake committed by the University would result in serious prejudice and injustice to the candidate and, consequently, the notice cancelling the admission of the candidate was set aside.
24. Coming to the case in hand, given the facts and circumstances noted above and the law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong and they are estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner, who upon being admitted for the relevant course vide Memorandum dated 15.07.2011, irretrievably changed her position to her grave disadvantage by getting cancelled the admission already secured by her in the same course at a University situated at Ambala.
25. As a result, the present writ petition is allowed and respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS are directed to accommodate the petitioner in the course of M.Sc. (Nursing) (Psychiatry) during the academic year 2011 in terms of the memorandum dated 15.07.2011 issued to her. As all the seats are stated to have been filled up, needful shall be done by creation of a supernumerary seat for the petitioner in the aforesaid course only for the relevant academic year 2011, with further directions to respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS to help the petitioner make up for the lost time by ensuring that she is given extra coaching for her to catch up with the rest of the students of her batch. In the event, respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS find it impractical to hold adequate classes for the petitioner to enable her to catch up with the rest of the students in her batch, then it is directed that the petitioner shall be granted admission in the course of M.Sc. (Nursing) (Psychiatry) in the next academic session commencing in the year 2012. Further, the respondent No.2/Director, AIIMS shall initiate an enquiry in the matter, which resulted in the scrapping of the first counselling in the M.Sc. Nursing course, academic session 2011 and initiate appropriate action as per law against those found guilty of dereliction of duty.
26. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications while quantifying the costs at `20,000/-, payable by respondents No.1 and 2/AIIMS.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 12, 2012 JUDGE
rkb/anb
W.P.(C) 5517/2011 Page 21 of 21