Delhi High Court
Dr.Pawan Khurana vs Uoi & Anr. on 29 July, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.9621/2009
% Date of Decision: 29.07.2009
Dr.Pawan Khurana .... Petitioner
Through Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate
Versus
UOI & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Ms.Lata Gangwani, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate for
the respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner is a doctor and is aggrieved by the Act of the
respondent No.2 in not filling all 13 seats for the course of MD in
Community Health Administration (CHA) for the academic session
2009-2012.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of condition No.2.6.3 of bulletin of
information for the session 2009 and a direction to the respondents to
fill up the seats for the post graduate course, MD (Community Health
Administration) by granting grace marks or by holding interview or by
conducting a fresh examination.
3. The respondent No.2 provides post graduate courses including
M.D in Community Health Administration. The minimum qualification
for admission to the said course is detailed in Clause 2.6.3 of bulletin of
information which is as under:-
"2.6.3 A candidate in order to become eligible for
admission must obtain 600 marks out of 1200 i.e 50%
marks in the PGMET. Provided that candidates belonging to
SC and ST categories shall be required to obtain 480 marks
out of 1200 i.e 40% marks in the PGMET and in case of
OBC category of candidates shall be required to obtain 540
marks out of 1200 i.e 45% in PGMET."
4. According to the petitioner there are 13 seats for the said course.
The petitioner has asserted that in the bulletin of information it was
categorically stipulated that there will not be any negative marking,
however, that condition was changed and it was decided by the
respondent to have negative marking.
5. According to the petitioner on account of negative marking no
person has become eligible for admission to M.D course in Community
Health Administration. It is asserted that even for the session 2008-
2010 five seats had remained vacant and in the circumstances it is
contended that the eligibility conditions cannot be made so stringent so
as not to admit even a single student. In the circumstances it is prayed
that grace marks should be given or a fresh interview be conducted so
as to admit the petitioner.
6. The petition is contested by the respondent No.2 contending
inter-alia that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the material facts.
It is contended by the respondent No.2 that petitioner had applied for
the course of M.D in Community Health Administration. It is averred
that an entrance examination was conducted in February, 2009 and
since the applicability of negative marking was communicated orally as
it was not incorporated in the bulletin of information and not
communicated in writing to the individual students, on the demands
being made by the students the examination held in February, 2009
was cancelled and a fresh examination was held on 1st March, 2009.
For the fresh examination which was conducted on 1st March, 2009
notices were published in daily newspapers and individual letters and
messages were sent to all the candidates intimating that the wrong
answers will entail negative marking. According to the respondent No.2
the petitioner has suppressed this fact that the earlier examination
conducted in February, 2009 was cancelled and a fresh examination
was conducted after due intimation about the negative marking in the
examination to every student including petitioner. The respondent No.2
has pleaded that petitioner and other candidates who have failed to
obtain the minimum eligibility condition do not have a right to be
awarded grace marks. It is also contended that the standard of
education cannot be diluted on account of all candidates failing to
qualify the minimum eligibility condition. In any case it is contended
that the last date for joining the post graduate course was 20th June,
2009 and after that date no admission can be made and has been made
especially in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court.
7. Regarding negative marking, it is contended that it has direct
nexus to the object of admitting deserving candidates to the M.D course
in the respondent university, as a candidate who is not certain of the
answer and who take chances in answering, cannot be permitted to
capitalize on his guess work.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned
counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why the petitioner
did not disclose that an entrance examination was conducted in
February, 2009 which was cancelled as the stipulation about the
negative marking was not communicated individually to all the
candidates. The petitioner in the circumstances is liable for the
consequence of suppressing the material fact and is not entitled for
exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction by the Court in his favor.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to show any
right of the petitioner to be awarded grace marks in the examination
especially in order to become eligible for admission to a post graduate
course. Since the petitioner does not have a legal right to have the grace
mark, the petitioner cannot claim a writ of mandamus or any other
direction to the respondent in the facts and circumstances. The learned
counsel for the petitioner is also unable to explain as to how admission
can be granted to the petitioner after 20th June, 2009 in view of the
subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court fixing the last date
for admission to the post graduate courses as 20th June, 2009.
10. In the circumstances, petitioner has not been able to make out a
case for grant of the relief as prayed by him. The writ petition in the
facts and circumstances is misconceived and it is, therefore, dismissed.
The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.
July 29, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'
