Garima Singh And Ors vs Hindu Rao Hospital And Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 873 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 7288/2011 & C.M. No.16546/2011

                                               Decided on: 08.02.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
GARIMA SINGH AND ORS                                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. P.D. Gupta, Adv.

                  versus

HINDU RAO HOSPITAL AND ANR                           ..... Respondents
                   Through : Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-2.


                                AND

            WP(C)No.516/2012 & C.M. No.1083/2012

PANKAJ FULCHAND JAIN                                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Dinesh Malik, Adv.

                  versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                   Through : Ms. Eshika Baruah, proxy counsel for
                   Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for R-1/MCD.
                   Through : Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The issues that arise for consideration in the present petitions

are identical and with the consent of the parties, WP(C)No.7288/2011 is

being treated as a lead matter for the purpose of deciding both the cases.

2. The petitioners herein are qualified doctors having completed

their MBBS course and they are aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2011

passed by respondent No.2/NBE, rejecting their applications for registration

with respondent No.2/NBE for their respective specialties/courses for the

January, 2011 session.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing the present

petitions are that in January, 2011, respondent No.2/NBE had renewed the

accreditation of respondent No.1/hospital for a period of three years from

January, 2011 to December, 2013 for providing P.G. training facilities to

Diplomate National Board (DNB) candidates every year in various

specialities. Vide advertisement/public notice dated 5.7.2011, respondent

No.1/hospital had invited online applications for DNB (Secondary) seats

(post diploma course of two years) in the hospital. As per the public notice,

the schedule fixed for admissions was as under:-

"On line applications facility would be available from          5th July, 2011
Last date for filling up of online form                         20th July, 2011
Tentative date for Aptitude Assessment Test                     25th July, 2011
List of candidates would be displayed on MCD website
and Notice Board of hospital                                    26th July, 2011

(no separate intimation would be sent for counseling) Tentative date of counseling 27th July, 2011 Selected candidates would have to join after completing all the formalities. 28th July,2011"

4. The eligibility criteria, terms and conditions for applying, and the

application procedures were also set out in the aforesaid public notice issued

by respondent No.1/hospital. In terms of the said public notice, the

petitioners submitted their applications for the vacancies advertised for DNB

(Secondary) course much before the scheduled cutoff date, i.e., 20.7.2011.

The petitioners appeared and qualified in their Aptitude Assessment Test

scheduled on 25.7.2011. Thereafter, they appeared for the counselling

conducted by the respondent No.1/hospital on 27.7.2011. By the end of the

day, letters of selection were issued by respondent No.1/hospital to the

petitioners informing them that they had been duly selected for admission

against a DNB Secondary seat in their respective departments/specialties

and requiring them to join their duties w.e.f. 28.7.2011. Immediately

thereupon, vide letter dated 29.7.2011, respondent No.1/hospital had

intimated respondent No.2/NBE about the selection of the petitioners for the

January 2011 session. However, vide impugned letter dated 4.8.2011,

respondent No.2/NBE had refused to consider the applications of the

petitioners for registration with respondent No.1/hospital for the DNB

(Secondary) course for January, 2011 session on the ground that the

candidates selected had joined after the cutoff date fixed by respondent

No.2/NBE, i.e., after 30.6.2011 and therefore they could not be registered

by respondent No.2/NBE for the January, 2011 session. Aggrieved by the

aforesaid rejection letter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid letter dated

4.8.2011 issued by respondent No.2/NBE is illegal and arbitrary and is liable

to be set aside for the reason that neither the petitioners, nor respondent

No.1/hospital were aware of the fact that the cutoff date fixed for selection

of candidates in the DNB (Secondary) course was 30.6.2011. He submits

that the arbitrary action of respondent No.2/NBE of having rejected the

registration of the petitioners, who had been selected for the DNB

(Secondary) seats after undergoing the prescribed procedure, is liable to be

quashed as the petitioners are not at fault for the purported illegality

committed by respondent No.1/hospital in the process of selection. It is

further submitted that the delay, if any, of 27 days in their joining duty at

respondent No.1/hospital as pointed out by respondent No.2/NBE is not on

account of any default on the part of the petitioners but was bonafide and

occurred due to the fact that respondent No.1/hospital had fixed the last

date of filling up the online form as 20.7.2011 which was much later than

the cut-off date fixed by respondent no.2/NBE and the tentative date of the

Aptitude Assessment Test was fixed as 25.7.2011, whereafter the tentative

date of counseling was fixed as 27.7.2011. On the very next day, i.e., on

28.07.2011, the petitioners had joined respondent No.1/Hospital.

6. Counsel for respondent No.1/hospital states that the hospital

had remained under the bonafide impression that the candidates for the DNB

(Secondary) course were to be selected only after the procedure for

selecting candidates for the DNB (Primary) course was complete and that

the petitioners may not be victimized for this error, more so, when the

revised/revamped procedure for admissions to the DNB (Secondary) course

had been implemented by respondent No.2/NBE for the first time in the year

2011, and there was some scope of lack of communication between the

respondents.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/NBE states, on instructions

from his client, that though the cutoff date for selecting candidates for the

DNB (Secondary) course was fixed as 30.6.2011, there was no embargo

placed by NBE on respondent No.1/hospital to have started the selection

process much prior to the said date and it was erroneous on the part of

respondent No.1/hospital to have waited for respondent No.2/NBE to finalize

the list of candidates admitted to the DNB (Primary) course for the year

2011, which process could be completed only on 8.6.2011. He states that it

is because of the aforesaid erroroneous assumption on the part of

respondent No.1/hospital that respondent No.2/NBE had to reject the

applications of the petitioners as being belated. It is however not denied

that ordinarily, the entire process for selection of candidates for the DNB

(Secondary) course by the hospitals and the registration of the said

candidates by respondent No.2/NBE is completed by 15th March of every

year. However, in the year 2011, due to the implementation of the

revamped procedure prescribed for admission in the DNB (Secondary)

course, which procedure was revised for the first time, the candidates for the

DNB (Secondary) course were permitted to be selected right upto

10.6.2011.

8. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused

the documents placed on record.

9. It is an undisputed position that the respondent No.1/hospital

had fixed a schedule for admission of candidates to the DNB (Secondary)

seats (post diploma course of two years), which commenced on 05.07.2011

and ended on 28.07.2011. The application forms were made available to the

candidates on 05.07.2011. The last date for filling up of online forms was

fixed as 20.07.2011 and the tentative date of counselling was slated for

27.07.2011. By 28.07.2011, the selected candidates were required to join

after completing all formalities. In the present case, all the petitioners went

through the process of filling their applications, qualifying in the Aptitude

Assessment Test, participating in the counselling and finally completing all

requisite formalities so as to join respondent No.1/hospital by 28.07.2011.

However, respondent No.2/NBE revised/revamped the procedure for

admission to the DNB (Secondary) course and implemented the same for the

first time in the year 2011. In terms of the revised/revamped procedure,

the cut-off date for selection of candidates to the DNB (Secondary) course

was fixed as 30.06.2011. On its part, respondent No.1/hospital started the

process of admissions to the aforesaid course only on 05.07.2011 and the

explanation offered for the delayed commencement of the procedure is that

respondent No.1/Hospital remained under a bonafide impression that the

said procedure could have been commenced only upon completion of the

selection process initiated for accepting the candidates for DNB (Primary)

course as was the normal practice followed prior to the year 2011. In other

words, the aforesaid confusion/misunderstanding arose at the end of

respondent No.1/hospital due to the fact that the revised/revamped

procedure prescribed by respondent No.2/NBE was implemented for the first

time in the year 2011 and some problems had arisen in understanding the

manner of implementing the said procedure, which had not been ironed out.

However, none of the petitioners can be blamed in any manner for the

aforesaid error/omission on the part of respondent No.1/hospital in belatedly

fixing the schedule for admissions to the DNB (Secondary) course. In fact,

the petitioners had adhered to the schedule as fixed by respondent

No.1/hospital and had joined on time after completion of all formalities. In

such circumstances, the rejection of the applications of the petitioners by

respondent No.2/NBE would cause immense hardship to them and result in

the loss of their whole academic year.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be faulted in any manner

for the lack of understanding between respondent No.1/hospital and

respondent No.2/NBE, nor can they be made to suffer on account of

rejection of their applications as it would result in their losing an entire

academic session when they are not to be blamed for the impasse between

the respondents. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quash and set aside

the impugned letters dated 4.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 (Annexure A (colly) in

WP(C)No.7288/2011 and the impugned letter dated 23.9.2011 in

WP(C)No.516/2011. Respondent No.2/NBE is directed to take necessary

steps to register the petitioners in their respective specialties for the

January, 2011 DNB (Secondary) course session.

11. As it is stated that the petitioners are continuing to attend the

DNB (Secondary) course with their respective specialities in the respondent

No.1/hospital in terms of the interim order dated 30.9.2011, passed in

WP(C)No.7288/2011 and the order dated 24.1.2012 passed in

WP(C)No.516/2012, it is directed that the requisite formalities of the

registration of the petitioners shall be completed by the respondent

No.2/NBE within a period of two weeks, under written intimation to

respondents No.1/hospitals, who shall in turn intimate the same to the

petitioners.

12. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending

applications.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY        08, 2012                                        JUDGE
sk