Pooja vs Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital
2006 Latest Caselaw 1897 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

Page 3380

1. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent to admit the petitioner in the general category to the 3 1/2 year diploma course, 2006 in General Nursing and Midwifery (DGNM) Course, 2006.

2. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies are that the petitioner appeared in the entrance test for admission to D.G.N.M, 2006 which was held on 11.6.2006 and scored 14th rank and 44th position in the inter ranking in the merit list of General category.

3. Respondent is a statutory body run by the Government of NCT of Delhi and recognized by the Indian Nursing Council which is a national body and which imparts and prepares guidelines and rules for the nursing courses throughout India. The respondent under the guidance of this national body is responsible for conducting examination in this regard and respondent is also recognized by Delhi Nursing Council. Respondent is stated to be a teaching hospital attached to the University College of Medical Science, Delhi University.

4. The petitioner contended that total 33 students were to be selected in unreserved category and out of 33, 27 seats were reserved for students who Page 3381 had passed their Senior Secondary examination from Delhi and rest from outside Delhi.

5. Since the petitioner had passed her Senior Secondary Examination from Government Girls Senior Secondary School No. 1, Najafgarh, New Delhi, therefore, she was entitled for consideration for the admission under the Delhi category.

6. The petitioner relied on the bulletin of information which stipulates regarding declaration of merit list of selected candidates. The relevant clause of the information bulletin is as under:

Declaration of Merit List of Selected Candidates:

a) Merit list of the selected candidates will be displayed on the notice board of the School of Nursing on the dates mentioned.

b) Merit list will also be available on hospital website www.gtbhospital- gnctd.com.

c) If the candidate fails to accept admission and submission of original 10+2 marksheet and certificates on stipulated date and time then seat will be offered to next meritorious candidate.

d) No postal correspondence will be done in this regard.?

7. According to the petitioner the entrance examination was conducted on 11.6.2006 and result was displayed on the notice board of the school of Nursing on 21.6.2006 and the admission of selected candidates was to be done on 22.6.2006 and 23.6.2006. The merit list of the candidate was also put on the website of the respondent.

8. According to the petitioner she went to the hospital to see the result on the notice board and found her name in the waiting list at serial No. 17. It is alleged that the petitioner was told by the authorities that though there is no chance for wait list candidates but vacancy position can be seen after 24.6.2006 on the website of the respondent hospital that is www.gtbhospital- gnctd.com.

9. The assertion of the petitioner is that she belongs to a rural background and there is no one literate in her family and the father of the petitioner is a farmer and earning only hand to mouth and the respondent hospital is about 70 kms away and it would have taken three hours for the petitioner to reach the destination in local buses. Therefore, the petitioner preferred to see the vacancy position on the website and she went a number of times to nearby cyber cafes but the vacancy position was not displayed.

10. Petitioner pleaded that on 19.7.2006 she came to know that the respondent has given admission to a candidate who has merit rank of 64 and, therefore, petitioner approached the Principal of the school and also made a representation. On approaching the respondent, petitioner learnt that the vacancy position was shown only on the notice board and not on the website of the respondent and, therefore, the vacancies were filled on 26.6.2006 and 27.06.2006. The petitioner also stated that she made an application for her consideration and admission, however, no copy of the application was kept by her and the petitioner kept on visiting the respondent, however, she was not given admission but the admission has been given to other candidates below her in the merit list. The petitioner, therefore, Page 3382 impugned the action of the respondent and contended that the respondent was under a legal obligation to intimate the vacancy position within time and they miserably failed to put the vacancy position on the website and the admission could be only on the basis of merit and the candidates much below her merit rank could not be admitted.

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on , Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Ors. to contend that rigid principle should not be applied pertaining to the domain of procedure and, therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner did not come on 26.6.2006 and 27.6.2006, as the vacancy position was not put up on the website but as the last seat was filled on 12.8.2006, the petitioner ought to have been admitted to the vacant seat. The petitioner also relied on , Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati and Ors. to contend that the students who are admitted in violation of the relevant rules and regulations though may be allowed to continue their studies and, therefore, the students having merit ranking of 65, 67 and 68 admitted by the respondent though can continue but the respondent is liable to increase the corresponding number of seats in proportion to the wrong admissions made as those who infringed the rules must pay for their lapses and the wrong done to deserving students who ought to have been admitted must be rectified and, therefore, the respondent be directed to increase the seats and admit the petitioner.

12. The petition is opposed by the respondent and the affidavit of Ms. Anjana Dhall, Principal School of Nursing, Delhi has been filed who asserted that the Common Entrance Test was conducted and the result was delivered to be delivered to the respondent by 20th June, 2006 of the said course, however, the result was obtained by the respondent on 21st June, 2006 at 5.45 PM and was displayed on the notice board without further delay at around 7 PM on 21st June, 2006.

13. According to the respondent the maintenance of website is outsourced by the respondent and though it takes about one day for uploading but the merit list was uploaded on the website of the respondent in the evening of 21st June, 2006.

14. According to the respondent only the merit list was to be uploaded and not the vacancy position which is apparent from the extract of the information bulletin which stipulates important dates and notes which are as under:

Important Dates/Notes

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement -                   On or before 23.04.2006

Sale of Prospectus -              24.04.2006 to 24.05.2006
                                  (Mon to Friday Except G.Holiday
                                  between 10 a.m. to 1.00 p.m)
Last date of submission 
of filled application -           26.05.2006 (up to 1 pm)

 

Page 3383
 Collect roll No. (Duplicate)
if not received by post -         07.06.2006

Entrance Exam -                   11.06.2006 
                                  10 am to 11.30 am
                                  (Report at 9 am sharp)

Display of result of -            21.06.2006 at 4 pm
entrance test on the Notice
board of School of Nursing
(Selected list, waiting list)

Admission of Selected-            22.6.2006 and 23.6.2006
Candidates Admission             (9 am to 1pm 23.6.2006 at 1 pm) 
will close on

Display of vacancy -              24.06.2006 at 2 pm
position on School's
Notice Board, if any

Admission of wait listed -        26.6.2006 and 27.6.2006 
Candidates, if any                (9 am to 1 pm)

Medical Examination -             28.06.2006 onwards
(Collect information
from office)

Hostel Joining -                  31.07.2006

Commencement of -                 01.08.2006
Course
 

15. According to the respondent the petitioner was placed on the waiting list at 17th rank and 44th position and vacancy position was displayed promptly on the school notice board on 24th June, 2006 and the candidates in the waiting list were admitted on 26th June, 2006 and 27th June, 2006. All the candidates who came on these two dates were given admission according to their merit.

16. The respondent asserted that three seats fell vacant subsequently which were given to candidates having merit rank of 65, 67 and 68 on 4.7.2006, 26.7.2006 and 12.8.2006 respectively. The first seat which had fallen vacant was filled on 4.7.2006 with the candidate having a merit rank of 65 as the last person who was granted admission on 27.6.2006 had a merit ranking of 64. According to the respondent all the seats have been filled by now and there is no vacancy and in the circumstances petitioner cannot be admitted to the course.

17. The rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner who denied the averments made by the respondent in counter affidavit and sought direction to the respondent to create an additional seat to admit the petitioner.

18. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the documents filed by the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondent emphasized that those candidates who did not come for counseling on 26th and 27th June, 2006 were not placed in any other waiting list and consequently they were not considered. The original record was produced by the counsel to show that besides petitioner who had a merit ranking of 44, Ritu Sharma with a merit rank of 24, Barkha with a merit rank of 10; Geetanjali Gautam with a merit rank of 18; Aneeta Yadav with a merit rank of 11; Romy Agnes with a merit rank of 2; Kimthaniang with a merit rank of 7 were not admitted as they did not appear on 26th June and 27th June, 2006 and subsequently they have not been considered.

Page 3384

19. The bulletin of information contemplates that merit list will also be made available on the hospital's website. It is not stated in the information bulletin that the vacancy position will also be put on the website of the respondent. Reading the information bulletin it cannot be inferred that even the vacancy position had to be uploaded on the hospital's website. The respondent has produced the notice showing the vacancy position as on 24th June, 2006 which was put up according to the information bulletin on the notice board on 24th June, 2006. The information bulletin giving important dates and notes categorically stipulates 'display of vacancy position on the school notice board, if any' and does not contemplate that the vacancy position will also be displayed on the website. The respondent has also produced the vacancy position which was put up on the notice board according to the detailed directions. In the circumstances the decision of the respondent not to put vacancy position on the website cannot be faulted. From the consideration of the details given in the information bulletin it is apparent that only merit list was contemplated to be put on the website and not the vacancy position and despite the fact that some of the candidates were living far off from Delhi, they cannot fault the decision of the respondent not to put the vacancy position on the website as it was never contemplated nor it was done. According to important dates and notes in the information bulletin admission to wait listed candidates was fixed for 26th and 27th June, 2006 and since the petitioner was in the wait list, she ought to have come on 26th and 27th June, 2006. Since the petitioner did not come and attended the counseling on 26th and 27th June, 2006, the lapse cannot be imputed to the respondent.

20. From the perusal of the original record produced by the respondent it is also apparent that the respondent has not given admission to any other candidate who were put in the wait list and who had not come on 26th and 27th June, 2006. The last candidate who was given admission on 27th June, 2006 was holding a merit rank of 64 and, therefore, the admission given to the merit rank holder 65, 67 and 68 on 4.7.2006, 26.7.2006 and 12.8.2006 to the vacancies which occurred after 27th June, 2006 cannot be faulted nor can be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that these subsequent vacancies were filled by the candidates having merit rank lower than that of petitioner.

21. The reliance of the petitioner on Dolly Chhanda (Supra) is also of no support as in that case the candidate had appeared for counseling but did not have the requisite certificate and subsequently when the candidate appeared with the appropriate certificate, she was denied admission and in these circumstances the Supreme Court had held that the rigid principle should not be applied in the domain of procedure.

22. The case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable as despite being in the merit list having a rank of 17th and 44th position, the petitioner did not appear for counseling on 26th and 27th June, 2006 and consequently after not appearing in the counseling the petitioner cannot claim that she has a right to be allotted the seats which had fallen vacant subsequently.

Page 3385

23. The respondent has not discriminated with the petitioner as other students, the details of whom have been given hereinabove were also declined admission as they did not appear for counseling on 26th and 27th June, 2006. If the petitioner has not been admitted it is on account of her own lapse in not appearing for admission on 26th and 27th June, 2006 despite being in the waiting list and consequently relying on the ratio of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (Supra) the respondent cannot be directed to increase the seats in the college and admit the petitioner. There does not seem to be any infringement of rules by the respondent and consequently the respondent cannot be directed to increase the seat (s) and admit the petitioner and/or other candidates who had also not appeared on the day of counseling for wait listed candidates which was on 26th and 27th June, 2006.

27. Resultantly, the petitioner is not entitled for a direction to the respondent to admit the petitioner in general category of 3 ' year diploma course, 2006 in General Nursing and Midwifery (D.G.N.M) Course, 2006. In the facts and circumstances the relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.