Delhi High Court
Meera Rani vs University Of Delhi & Another on 9 October, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.10.2013
+ W.P.(C) 3552/2013
MEERA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Dushyant Choudhary, Adv
along with petitioner in person.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv for R-
1, Mr R.K. Kaushik, Adv for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner before this Court appeared in the Post Graduate
Entrance Test (Homoeopathy) Examination 2013. When the result of
the aforesaid entrance examination was declared on 28.11.2012, the
petitioner was given second rank, having obtained 81 out of 120 marks.
The petitioner obtained a copy of her OMR answer sheet under Right to
Information Act and applied for re-evaluation of her answers in respect
of questions No. 16,38,88,106,107,108 and 111. Vide order dated
14.05.2013, the petitioner was informed that her representation had been
duly considered and it was found that there was no difference in the
merit already declared by the University and the admission granted to
respondent No. 2-Dr. Nisha who was given the first rank to the entrance
examination.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that
they have re-checked the answers contained in the answer key and on
re-consideration of the matter by experts, it has been found that the
answer contained in the answer key in respect of question No.
16,88,107,108 and 111 were wrong, whereas all options given in the
answer key in respect of question No. 106 were wrong. The result was
re-computed on the basis of the correct answers, after excluding
question No. 106 from consideration and after giving due credit to the
petitioner as well as to respondent No.2 for the correct answers, it was
found that both of them got 85 marks each out of total of 120 marks.
3. Clause 2.12.1 of the Bulletin of Information which deals with the
situation where two or more candidates obtain equal marks reads as
under:-
"Admission would be made strictly on the
basis of merit of the eligible candidates
determined by marks obtained in the PGMET
(H).
In case, two or more candidates obtain equal
marks in PGMET (H) the inter se merit of such
candidates shall be determined in order of
preference as follows:
i. The candidate who has got more
aggregate marks, taking into consideration
marks of all the four professional examination
of BHMS course together with in first attempt,
will be given preference for admission.
ii. If the candidates have equal marks in
BHMS degree also, after taking into
consideration marks of all the four
professional examination, then the candidate
older/oldest in age will be given preference for
admission."
4. It was found that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.2 had
cleared all the four professional examinations of BHMS course together
in the first attempt. Therefore, neither of them could be given
preference in the admission. The petitioner had 2886 marks in the four
professional examinations out of 5100, whereas respondent No. 2 had
2907 marks. Therefore, respondent No.2 on account of her having
higher marks in BHMS examination was declared the holder of rank No.
1. It is true that there is no specific rule which provides for giving
preference to the candidate having higher marks in BHMS when none of
the candidates having equal marks has cleared all the four professional
examinations together in the first attempt, but, considering that clause
(ii) of clause 2.12.1 of the Bulletin of Information would apply only if
the candidates have equal marks in BHMS degree, the criteria of age
cannot be applied. In the absence of any criteria in this regard in the
Bulletin of Information, the respondent-University, in my view, was
fully justified in granting first rank to respondent No. 2 on the ground
that she had higher marks in BHMS. Since there is only one seat in the
course, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the aforesaid
course.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the University
can be directed to create another post to accommodate the petitioner.
That, however, cannot be directed in a writ petition. Only one seat in
MD (Homoeopathy) was notified by the University and, therefore, one
seat could be filled up on the basis of the result of the entrance
examination. The respondent No.2 having got equal marks in the
entrance examination and also having got higher marks in BHMS
examination, she had rightly been given admission to the aforesaid
course.
The writ petition, in these circumstances, is dismissed, without
any order as to costs.
V.K. JAIN, J
OCTOBER 09, 2013
BG
