Delhi High Court
Renu Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26th October, 2010.
+ W.P.(C) No.1886/2010
%
RENU SHARMA ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh & Mr. Ashok Singh,
Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. J.P. Karunakaran & Mr. Jaspreet
Singh Kapoor, Advocates for R-5.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the Clause 8(iii) in the Information Bulletin
/Admission Brochure of the All India Pre-Medical / Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination - 2010 conducted by the respondent No.3 Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) for admission to 15% seats of the All India
Quota in Medical / Dental Colleges and which clause limits the number of
attempts at qualifying the Entrance Exam to three. It is the case of the
petitioner that there is no such restriction with respect to the 85% of the
remaining seats filled up through the State / other quotas and / or for
entrance examination to other professional courses and the said Clause is
arbitrary. Notice of the petition was issued.
2. The petitioner having already availed of her three attempts, also
sought interim relief of permitting her to appear in the preliminary
examination scheduled for 3rd April, 2010. However, the said interim relief
was declined to the petitioner vide a detailed order dated 26 th March, 2010
after the counter affidavit had been filed by the respondent No.3 CBSE. The
petitioner preferred an intra court appeal being LPA No.214/2010 which was
also dismissed on merits giving reasons, vide order dated 30th March, 2010.
3. It was inter alia held in the said two orders that the condition
imposed of limiting the number of attempts a candidate could take was
incorporated after due deliberation, was placed before the Advisory
Committee for consideration, was thereafter sent to the respondent No.4
Medical Council of India (MCI) and introduced in the prospectus by the
Governing Body of the respondent No.3 CBSE only thereafter and there was
thus no need for interference in the same. It was further held that the
petition was belated, the petitioner having known of the said condition since
the time she took the first attempt. The Division Bench while approving the
reasoning of the Single Bench also found merit in the reasoning to restrict
three opportunities as the maximum to every candidate and held that this
ensures homogeneity and similarity of mindset in the classroom and it is
desirable that students should, by and large, belong to a common age group.
It was further held that policy decisions are within the domain of policy
makers and unless manifestly arbitrary, Courts would be slow to interfere
with the same.
4. The decisions aforesaid though on interim application but post filing
of counter affidavit ought to have in fact disposed of the writ petition itself.
Since then the respondent No.2 Assistant Director General (Medical
Education), Directorate General of Health Services, Government of India
has filed a counter affidavit but nothing new is stated therein. I may
however record that it is the plea of the respondent No.3 CBSE as well as
the Government of India that the Scheme of the All India Quota Entrance
Examination was devised by the Supreme Court of India and approved by
the Supreme Court of India.
5. The counsel for the petitioner during the hearing had stated that a
rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent No.3 CBSE had been
filed. Not finding the same on record a photocopy of the same was taken on
record.
6. None has appeared for the respondent No.4 MCI or the respondent
No.5 Dental Council of India (DCI) though impleaded. It is the plea as
aforesaid of the respondent No.3 CBSE that the number of attempts was
restricted after approval of the respondent No.4 MCI.
7. The counsel for the petitioner during the hearing has handed over
copies of "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997" to
demonstrate that the same do not provide for restricting the number of
attempts or the maximum age of the student for admission in the course.
Else, it is argued that there was no such restriction prior to the year 2006 and
there is likely to be no such restriction with effect from the year 2011. The
absence of any such restriction for admission to the remaining 85% seats
forms the anchor of the argument of the petitioner.
8. The counsel for the respondent No.3 CBSE has handed over copies of
the following judgments:
(i) Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986)
3 SCC 727.
(ii) Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1987)
4 SCC 122.
(iii) Sharwan Kumar Vs. Director General Health Services (1993)
3 SCC 332.
to show as to how the scheme of All India Entrance Examination was
mooted and formulated by the Supreme Court of India and under the
approval of the Supreme Court of India and to contend that the same ought
not to be tinkered with. On the aspect of no such restriction being there for
the remaining 85% seats, it is contended that since the number of seats
available for all India Quota competition is limited, a need for capping the
number of attempts was felt.
9. There is no new material available since the detailed orders aforesaid
of this Bench and of the Division Bench on all the aforesaid pleas.
Accordingly, there is no reason to take a different view. The petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
26th October, 2010
„gsr‟
(corrected and released on 7th December, 2010)
