Delhi High Court
Dr. Saiprasad Gangadhar Shinde vs The Secretary, Ministry Of Heath & ... on 30 September, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th September, 2010.
+ W.P.(C) No.4203/2010
%
DR. SAIPRASAD GANGADHAR SHINDE ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Manoj Gorkela & Ms. Rohini
Kumar, Advocates
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
HEATH & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes & Mr. Deepak
Penak, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
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 petitioner claiming to be an OBC, by this writ petition impugns
the procedure for admission to Post Graduation / Post Doctoral Courses
followed by the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
for the academic session commencing from July, 2010. It is the case of the
petitioner that respondent AIIMS did not draw up an overall merit list and
drew up separate merit lists for General, SC/ ST & OBC categories thus
depriving the petitioner from competing and gaining admission in the
General Category.
2. I have with respect to the same admissions, vide judgment dated 19th
August, 2010 in WP(C) No.4230/2010 titled Dr. Jagveer Singh Vs. The
Chairperson, Counselling Committee, Academic Section, AIIMS, held the
procedure followed by respondent AIIMS to be bad and directed the
respondent AIIMS to with effect from next admissions, allow the candidates
belonging to the Reserved Category to compete in the General (unreserved)
Category also and further held that the candidates belonging to the reserved
category, if entitled to admissions on their own merit in General
(unreserved) Category be so admitted without counting them against seats in
the Reserved Category.
3. This petition also thus so far as the legal question is concerned, is
entitled to succeed. However, the fact remains that the academic session has
already commenced and is underway. The question which thus arises is of
the relief to be granted.
4. Another matter viz. WP(C) No.6436/2010 titled Dr. Mundhe Kailas
Maharudra Vs. AIIMS, New Delhi, with respect to the same examination
had also come up before me on 28th September, 2010. The counsel for the
petitioner therein had contended that though the petitioner owing to the fault
of respondent AIIMS had missed the session beginning July, 2010 but
should be admitted in the session beginning January, 2011. Reliance for the
said prayer was placed on the judgment dated 10th December, 2009 in LPA
No.622/2009 titled Dr. Manish Patnecha Vs. Chairperson Counseling
Committee AIIMS. I have vide judgment dated 28th September, 2010
disallowed the said prayer also.
5. The counsel for the petitioner urges that he has raised some other
grounds than those raised in the earlier petitions and contends that this
Bench having found in favour of the OBC candidates ought to grant the
relief by quashing the entire examination process and directing respondent
AIIMS to hold fresh admissions.
6. I am unable to accede to the said request of the counsel for the
petitioner. The students who have been admitted in the current session are
not made parties to this petition and are not before this Court. Without
hearing them, the entire admission process cannot be scrapped. Moreover
the admissions are for candidates in the other categories also and who are
not affected by the present writ petition and the present session insofar as
they are concerned cannot be disturbed.
7. It is informed that the intra-Court appeals against earlier decisions
aforesaid are pending. It is deemed expedient that the petitioner herein urges
the additional grounds which he is seeking to urge, before the Division
Bench only rather than before this Bench.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. No order
as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
30th September, 2010
'gsr'..
