Harish Verma And Ors vs Delhi University And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 271 Del

$~5.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 8956/2011 & CM No.20201/2011 (for stay).

       HARISH VERMA AND ORS                   ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Praveen Agrawal & Ms. S.
                             Singhania, Adv.

                                    versus

       DELHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS                  ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv.
                             Mr. Sumit Babbar, Mr. Sahil Singh
                             Chauhan for Mr. Mehmood Pracha,
                             SLC for AIIMS/R-3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                 ORDER

% 13.01.2012

1. The petition impugns the Notification dated 13 th December, 2011

issued by the respondent Delhi University notifying that the University will

not conduct Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test (PGMET) for admission

to MD/MS/MDS Diploma courses under 50% Delhi University quota for the

Session-2012 and that admission thereto will be made on the basis of merit

obtained in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination

(AIPGMEE) to be held on 8th January, 2012.

2. The contention in this petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation is

that since the respondent University in the past was holding a separate test

i.e. PGMET for admission to the said courses, it cannot discontinue doing

so. Mandamus is sought directing the respondent University to hold PGMET

for admission to the aforesaid courses in the academic session 2012. We

enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to what prejudice the

aspirants for admission to the said course suffer by non holding of a separate

admission test. The only reply is that PGMET in the past used to be held in

the first week of February each year; that the said aspirants were thus under

the impression that they had time till first week of February, 2012 to prepare

for the said test; however they had notice of less than a month from the said

Notification of the AIPGMEE which was made the basis for admission to

the said courses also.

3. No student has come before us making the said grievance. The

counsel for the University has on the contrary contended that all aspirants

for admission appear in AIPGMEE as well as in PGMET to ensure

admission either in the All India quota or in the Delhi University quota. It is

further stated that even the seven petitioners who have preferred this petition

in public interest have applied for appearance in AIPGMEE and it is not as

if they were pegging their hopes only on PGMET.

4. It is evident from the aforesaid that no case of any prejudice is made

out. The petitioners and/or other aspirants for admission are expected to

have prepared for the AIPGMEE also. If the respondent University decides

to make admissions to the Delhi quota seats on the basis of the result of

AIPGMEE also, the petitioners and/or other aspirants are not found to have

any right to insist on a separate examination being held particularly when

both examinations are for admission to the same course with the two being

for separate quota of seats.

5. In this regard, we may also mention that the Division Bench of this

Court speaking through one of us i.e. Acting Chief Justice has in judgment

dated 23rd December, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 4294/2011 titled Noopur

Chawla v. University of Delhi and other connected writ petitions accepted

the contention of the petitioners therein for holding of a joint common

entrance examination though qua allocation of nominees of Government of

India seats in various colleges in Delhi which included Delhi University as

well and put our imprimatur on a joint common entrance examination rather

than separate examination being beneficial to the students. Upon attention of

the counsel for the petitioners herein being invited thereto, he seeks to aver

errors in the said judgment. However the remedy therefor is elsewhere.

6. AIPGMEE is conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences

(AIIMS). Though the counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is not

permissible for Delhi University to delegate or outsource the conduct of

examination to AIIMS but we do not find any merit in the said contention

also.

7. The decision as aforesaid of the respondent Delhi University to make

admissions to the courses under its own quota of seats on the basis of

AIPGMEE is a policy/administrative decision non-interferable in exercise of

powers of judicial review. In any case no ground therefor is made out. The

holding of common entrance examination is the norm of the day and the

times and the aspirants to the course are not found having any vested right to

appear in separate examination.

8. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 13, 2012 pp