Delhi High Court
National Board Of Examinations vs Np Kamalesh & Ors. on 20 April, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 362/2011
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS .... Appellant
Through Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate.
versus
NP KAMALESH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 20.04.2011
National Board of Examinations has filed the present intra-court
appeal impugning the decision dated 16th Mary, 2011 allowing W.P.(C)
No.1732/2011 filed by Mr. N.P. Kamalesh, the respondent No.1 herein.
2. It is an admitted case of the appellant that the respondent No.1 had
appeared in the Common Entrance Test (CET) held in January, 2010 for
admission as a DNB Trainee in Super Speciality in Surgical Speciality
Group. The respondent No.1 had qualified and was entitled to be admitted
as DNB Trainee in any of the accredited hospitals of the appellant.
3. The respondent No.1 applied and vide letter dated 27th February,
2010 he was informed of his selection as a DNB Trainee in PVS Memorial
Hospital Ltd., Kaloor Cochin, Kerala, the respondent No.2 herein.
4. The contention raised by the appellant is that the respondent No.2
could not have admitted/selected the respondent No.1 as DNB Trainee in
view of the amendments carried out and Information Bulletin for CET-SS
January, 2010. Reference in particular is made to Clause 8, which
stipulates that accredited hospitals were required to evolve a merit list of
applicant candidates in descending order of marks and were required to
offer seats on merit-cum-choice basis i.e. the candidates at their respective
position of merit were free to exercise their option in the available seats.
5. It appears that there was violation of the said clause but the learned
single Judge has allowed the writ petition in view of the reasons given in
paragraph 14 of the impugned decision, which for the sake of convenience
are reproduced below:-
"14. I am of the view that:
(i) since the petitioner has already spent by now over one
year as a DNB Trainee; and,
(ii) further, since the procedure for admission is in the
process of transformation; and,
(iii) yet further for the reason of it being now not possible to
give any benefit to the respondent No.3 or to anyone
more eligible than the petitioner.
Equity demands that the petitioner be permitted to
continue with the course. It cannot be lost sight of that
the procedure under which the petitioner has been
admitted by the respondent No.2 Hospital was prevalent
since the year 1975.
6. Apart from the above reasons, we find that the respondent No.3
hospital had written to the appellant letter dated 29th March, 2010, but no
reply or confirmation was sent. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had sent
reminder dated 30th June, 2010 to the appellant. The appellant raised
objection to selection of the respondent No.1 vide their letter dated 13th
August, 2010. The appellant, therefore, had belatedly responded to the
letter dated 29th March and the same was responded after nearly 5 months.
By that time the respondent No.1 had already joined the course and was
studying. As noticed by the single Judge, the respondent No.1 had already
completed half of the course and has studied for about 14-15 months.
Setting aside his selection will not serve any purpose. Rather a seat will go
waste. Of course this does not mean and should not be construed to imply
that the accredited hospitals/institutions can violate the prescribed
rule/policy of merit-cum-choice.
7. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the present
appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 20, 2011/NA CHIEF JUSTICE
