Delhi High Court
Dr. Seema S. Yadagiri vs Uoi And Anr on 10 March, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th March, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1584/2011 & CM No.3353/2011 (for directions).
DR. SEEMA S. YADAGIRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Mehta & Mr. Nar Hari
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh & Mr. Ashish
Kumar Srivastava, Advocates for
respondents.
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 had appeared in the All India Post Graduate Medical
Entrance Examination-2011 conducted by the respondents and had secured
a high rank of 1451 therein and in accordance with the option exercised by
her, was called for counseling at Mumbai on 5th March, 2011. The
petitioner claims to be a resident of District Gulbarga, Karnataka. She has
filed documents before this Court to show that she along with her mother
travelled to Mumbai to participate in the counseling and reached there in
the morning of 5th March, 2011. It is the case of the petitioner duly
supported by documents that on reaching Mumbai, she took ill and had to
be hospitalized in Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital and was
discharged therefrom only the next day i.e. 6th March, 2011. 6th being a
Sunday, the petitioner reported at the Counseling centre on 7th March, 2011
but was denied participation in counseling for the reason of having not
appeared on the stipulated day. The petitioner claims to have thereafter
rushed to Delhi where the offices of the respondents are situated and when
her representations to the respondents failed, has filed the present petition
for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the
counseling. It is stated that the counseling is being held till 21st March,
2011 but if the petitioner is denied participation in the same immediately,
all the seats in the preferred courses in the best Institutes are likely to be
filled up, causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.
2. The counsel for the respondent no.1 appears on advance notice. He
has drawn attention to page 27 of the paper book being a part of the
prospectus for the said examination and in Clause 12 (e) wherein it is
provided that if owing to dire-emergency such as Hospital admission,
Accident etc. the candidate is unable to appear in person on the notified
date for counseling, he/she can send a blood relative along with an
authority letter to represent him/her in counseling. He thus contends that
the petitioner under the said Rule was required to appear for counseling
through her representative and having failed to do so is now not entitled to
any relief. Attention is also invited to Clause 12(i)(c) of the said prospectus
which bars an absenting candidate from participating even in the 2nd round
of counseling. He thus contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief claimed.
3. Considering the nature of the controversy and the urgency, need is
not felt to issue formal notice and the counsels have been finally heard.
4. I have in judgment dated 22nd July, 2010 in W.P.(C) 4782/2010
titled Saurabh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and in judgment dated 9th
August, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.5357/2010 titled Sanjay Kumar Patel v.
Union of India on a consideration of the case law on the subject have held
that inpsite of the rule of forfeiture for non-appearance in counselling at
the stipulated time, the Court has the power to intervene in cases where the
participant is prevented from appearing / participating in counselling for
reasons beyond his/her control.
5. The Division Bench of this Court also recently in judgment dated 3rd
March, 2011 in LPA No.599/2010 titled Varun Kumar Aggarwal Vs.
Union of India has held that the hopes and aspirations of a candidate who
has obtained a high rank in admission test for Post Graduate Medical
courses should not be scuttled and the Court should make all attempts to
ensure that a meritorious candidate does not lose out on the admission.
6. In so far as the argument of the counsel for the respondents of the
petitioner having not participated through her representative also as
permitted under the prospectus is concerned, counseling is held by the
respondents only at four centres in the country; however candidates from
all over the country participate in the examination held by the respondents
and have to travel long distances to participate in the counseling. Only
blood relatives/spouses are permitted to represent as authorized
representative of the candidate. It is not always possible that the candidate
would be traveling with such blood relative/spouse. In the present case
however though the mother of the petitioner is shown to have travelled
with her from Gulbarga, Karnataka to Mumbai by train but the mother in a
strange city where her daughter had been suddenly taken ill could not be
expected to leave the daughter and rush for participation in the counseling.
I am therefore of the opinion that merely because the said provision has
been provided for in the prospectus would not come in the way of the
petitioner being entitled to the relief in accordance with the judgments
aforesaid.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the petitioner is
now at Delhi, she be permitted to participate in the counseling at Delhi.
The counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that he will have to take
instructions whether the same is possible, the petitioner having opted for
counseling at Mumbai.
8. Since each and every day or minute is crucial, the counsel for the
petitioner has opted to rush to Mumbai only for participation in the
counseling.
9. The petition is accordingly allowed.
10. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in
the counseling at Mumbai as soon as the petitioner appears for the said
purpose along with the copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Dasti under signatures of court master.
CM No.3354/2011 (for exemption).
Allowed, subject to just exception.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MARCH 10, 2011
pp
