Dr. Vidya Sagar Madhavaram & Ors vs National Board Of Examination
2013 Latest Caselaw 4551 Del

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Decision: 01.10.2013
+      W.P.(C) 5898/2013 & CM 13012/2013
       DR. VIDYA SAGAR MADHAVARAM & ORS
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:   Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                    Vikram Mehta, Mr. Anshuman
                                    Srivastava and Ms. Nistha Kumar,
                                    Advs.
                         versus

       NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION
                                                              ..... Respondent
                           Through:      Dr. Rakesh Gosain and Mr. Kunal
                                         Kahol, Advs. for NBE
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

The petitioners before this Court appeared in DNB Common Entrance Test (CET) held by the respondent - National Board of Examination (NBE) for admission to DNB Post Graduate Course - January, 2013. Two round of counselling were held for admission to January, 2013. The petitioners were offered seats in the first round of counselling which they declined while exercising the option to participate in the second round of counselling. When the petitioners participated in second round, which was to be held from 1.8.2013 to 7.8.2013 which was later on extended up to 30.8.2013, they were again offered seats which they declined to accept. It was clearly stipulated in the notice dated 18.7.2013, notifying the revised schedule for the second round of counselling, that there shall be no further round of counselling for January, 2013 admissions and consequently there shall not be any provision to opt for further round of counselling. Despite this stipulation contained in the

notification, the petitioners chose not to accept the seats which were offered to them in the second round of counselling. Since they knew that there would be no third round of counselling, it is obvious that they reconciled to the fact that they would not get admission during admission session January, 2013.

2. Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted a fourth round of counselling for admission to PG Medical Course, some of the candidates who had accepted the seats offered to them in the first and second round of counselling, vacated those seats and as a result, some seats have become available in the DNB Course after 30.8.2013. Admittedly, at present the number of such seats is about 150.

3. The petitioners before this Court represented to the National Board of Education requesting that another round of counselling may be held to fill up the large number of seats which have fallen vacant in DNB Course. Their representation having been declined, they are before this Court seeking the following relief:

a. issue an appropriate writ/ order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to fill up all the vacant DNB PG Medical seats of January, 2013 session by conducting a third/ additional round of counselling.

4. In its counter affidavit, the respondent - NBE has stated that they have already advertised for admission to the July, 2013 Admission Session and the seats which had fallen vacant after 30.8.2013 have been carried forward to July, 2013 Session. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-NBE the said seats have already been offered to the candidates who had appeared in the DNB- CET held for making admission to July, 2013 session. This according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, however, has been done only on 30.9.2013, much after filing of the writ petition.

5. As noted earlier, the petitioners declined the seats which were offered to them in the first round of counselling as well as the seats which were offered to them in the second round of counselling. While declining the seats offered to them in the second round of counselling they were fully aware that there will be no further round of counselling. Despite that, they chose not to accept the seats offered to them. Having declined to accept the seats offered to them, the petitioner, in my view, can have no legitimate claim to the seats which they fallen vacant after 30.8.2013. This is more so when, the admission process for admission to the July, 2013 session has already commenced and the counselling for making admission to the aforesaid July, 2013 session is scheduled to commence on 4.10.2013. The respondent having already offered the seats which have fallen vacant after 30.7.2013, to the candidates who are seeking admission in July, 2013 session, it would not be fair to those candidates if these seats, instead of being offered to them are made subject matter of another round of counselling for the candidates who had applied for admission to the January, 2013 session despite their having been offered seats not only in the first but also in the second round of counselling and despite knowing that there would be no third round of counselling, they having declined to accept those seats. In any case, the applicants for July, 2013 admission are not before the Court and the seats already notified for them cannot be made available to the petitioners, without they being partners to this writ petition.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 03, 2013/rd