Savita Sigchi vs Executive Director
2012 Latest Caselaw 5138 Del

68
$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) 5178/2012

%                                          Judgment dated 30.08.2012


     SAVITA SIGCHI                           ..... Petitioner
              Through:         Mr.Naveen Kumar Chauhan and
                               Mr.Praveen Swarup, Advocates

                    versus

     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR              ..... Respondent

Through: Dr.Rakesh Gusai, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 5178/2012 & CM.10578/2012

1. Petitioner in this case has cleared her MBBS course from Rajasthan in the

year 2006. Thereafter in the year 2011 petitioner cleared her Diploma in

Gynecology and Obstetrics from Maulana Azad Medical College at Delhi;

and at present petitioner is working as a senior resident in Sanjay Gandhi

Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi.

2. The petitioner appeared in the Centralized All India Basis Entrance Exam

for admission to diploma of National Board (hereinafter referred to as

DNB) course/ degree for students/ Doctors, who have passed their

diploma course. The exam for the year 2012 was held on 10.06.2012.

The petitioner applied and was declared as successful on 23.07.2012 and

obtained 122 marks out of 180 marks and secured 51 st position in the

specialty in Gynecology. The counseling for the seat was scheduled to be

held on 09.08.2012. But due to heavy traffic, petitioner reported late at

the venue by 40 minutes. The petitioner was allowed counseling, but as

the petitioner came late to the National Board Examination Office, she

was informed that her rank has been changed and severally down-graded.

The petitioner was thereafter called for counseling randomly at 110 th rank

out of approximately 200 students.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, petitioner has filed the present

writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could

not have been down-graded from 51 to 110, merely because she was late

by 40 minutes. It is also submitted that petitioner should have been made

to join counseling after 40 minutes and at the rank available at that stage.

4. Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and has filed the status

report. According to the status report on 09.08.2012, total 213 candidates

were called for counseling and the candidates were divided into two

batches: the first batch comprised of 109 candidates and second batch

comprised of 104 candidates. Once the counseling started, around 25

candidates were in a loop at any given point of time at three stations, as

per the flow chart, which has been filed by the petitioner along with

petition and the same is reproduced below:

5. It is submitted that at station „A‟ documents were to be verified and

registration for counseling was to be done. Having gone through Station

„A‟ candidate had to move to Station „B‟, for reviewing the availability of

seats, and at station „B‟ at any point of time 4 candidates review the seat

availability at pre-installed computers. Thereafter candidates who have

reviewed the seat availability have to move on to the seat selection area

which is Station C. Subsequently candidates discuss their choices with

NBE faculty cum counselors and make a choice of their seats. They also

sign an undertaking for seat selection or opting out of the counseling and

thereafter the candidate get the seat allotment letter for the selected seats.

6. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that once the counseling

begins the entire flow cannot be broken, as it would lead to confusion and

commotion amongst the candidates present for counselling and it is seen

in past that hue and cry is created in case a fresh candidate is introduced

and it is difficult to explain to the persons, who are in the first loop as to

why their order is being changed. It is submitted that in order to follow a

uniform practice the terms of the information bulletin brochure have made

it clear that in case a candidate comes late, he/ she misses his/her turn. It

is submitted that the petitioner was placed at serial number 110 as

counselling for 109 candidates had already begun.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties. In view of the status report, which

has been filed, it cannot be said that the respondent acted in a bias manner

or the petitioner was singled out. The information brochure had also

made it clear that a person, who comes late, would miss his/ her turn.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Varun Kumar Agarwal v.

Union of India & ors., reported at 179 (2011) DLT 24, has held that the

terms of the prospectus are binding and are strictly construed. Para 14 of

the judgment reads as under:

"14. Presently we shall refer to certain authorities in the field that have dealt with sanctity of a prospectus or brochure and the legal impact when it is changed in the midstream. In Dr.M. Vannila v. Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission, 2008 (3) CTC 69, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has opined thus:

19.The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580. Following the same, a Divison Bench of this Court has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr. A. v. Director of Medical Education (1986 WLR 207) that the rules and norms of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P. Prasanna v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 WLR 624). The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr.M. Ashiq Nihmathullah v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission."

9. In view of the explicit conditions laid down in the bulletin of information,

terms of which must be respected and having regard to the status report,

which has been filed, I find no infirmity in the action of the respondent,

the present petition cannot be entertained and accordingly petition and the

application stand dismissed.

G.S.SISTANI, J AUGUST 30, 2012 ssn