Delhi High Court
Manish Yadav And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 May, 2014
Author: Manmohan
#24
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3210/2014 & CM APPL. 6681/2014
MANISH YADAV AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Puneet Yadav with Mr. Amit,
Shana, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC with
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for
R-1.
Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate for R-3.
% Date of Decision : 20th May, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"a) Issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction in the
nature of a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents
to report the vacant seats left out after conducting 2 nd
round of counselling and also seats allotted but not
joined by or resigned by the candidates after 1 st and 2nd
round of counselling of Diplomat of National Board-
January, 2014 session:
b) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order or Direction in the
nature of a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent
to conduct an extended second round of counselling/third
round of counselling of Diplomat of National Board
examination for January, 2014 session, after the final
round of counselling of All India Quota examination and
State Quota examination i.e. after 19.06.2014, and
allotting the vacant seats after conducting 2nd around of
counselling and also seats allotted but not joined by or
resigned by the candidates after 1st and 2nd round of
counselling of Diploma of National Board-January, 2014
session;
c) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order or Direction in the
nature of a Writ of mandamus to the Respondents to
ensure that all the seats notified in January, 2014 session
of Diplomat of National Board examination are allotted
to the candidates/students who have secured ranks and
are not carried forward to the July, 2014 session of the
Diplomat of National Board examination;
d) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order or Direction in the
nature of a Writ of certiorari declaring rule 5.6
contained in the Diplomat of National Board handbook
for centralized counselling which debars a candidate
from appearing in further rounds of counselling after
opting for a confirmed seat as arbitrary,
unconstitutional, unreasonable and unworkable and
thereby allowing the candidates to upgrade their courses
in the second/third round of counselling of Diplomat of
National Board examination for January, 2014 session.
e) Pass any other or further Order(s) as this Court deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Mr. Puneet Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners submits that due to
overlapping of schedule between Diplomat of National Board counselling
and State quota counselling for allotment of seats in post graduate medical
course, there is carry forward of seats from January to July session of the
Diplomat of National Board (for short 'DNB'). According to petitioner, this
is impermissible in law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for
petitioners relies upon Supreme Court's judgment in Faiza Choudhary v.
State of J&K, (2012) 10 SCC 149 wherein it has been held as under:-
"14. A medical seat has life only in the year it falls, that too only
till the cut-off date fixed by this Court i.e. 30th September in the
respective year. Carry-forward principle is unknown to the
professional courses like medical, engineering, dental, etc. No
rule or regulation has been brought to our knowledge conferring
power on the Board to carry forward a vacant seat to a
succeeding year. If the Board or the Court indulges in such an
exercise, in the absence of any rule or regulation, that will be at
the expense of other meritorious candidates waiting for
admission in the succeeding years.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
16..... We, therefore, hold that a seat which fell vacant in a
particular year cannot be carried forward or created in a
succeeding year, in the absence of any rule or regulation to that
effect."
3. Consequently, learned counsel for petitioners prays that an extended
second/third round of counselling of DNB be conducted after 25th June,
2014, that means, after third round counselling of All India counselling and
State counselling so that seats of DNB are not carried forward to July 2014
session.
4. On the other hand, Dr. Rakesh Gosain, learned counsel for respondent
no. 3 and Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, learned counsel for respondent no. 1
submit that DNB conducts a biennial admission, that means, in the month of
January and July. They state that no vacant seat is carried forward to the
next year and, therefore, judgment of the Supreme Court in Faiza
Choudhary v. State of J&K (supra) has no application. They further state
that the intent of the present petition is to obtain a direction that National
Board of Examination holds its counselling subsequent to All India and
State counselling. Dr. Rakesh Gosain further states that as of today there is
no vacant seat in the DNB except fifteen seats which are reserved.
5. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that
it is not for the court to either frame a schedule of counselling or give a
direction that DNB should hold its counselling subsequent to All India and
State counselling. In fact, the Supreme Court in All India Council for
Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors., (2009) 11
SCC 726 has held as under:-
"17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role
of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of
educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the
courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle
of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with
reference to or connected with education, courts will step in.
In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3
SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this Court observed: (SCC
pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17)
"11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists
fear to tread. ...
* * *
17. ... While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions
of academic bodies."
6. This Court is also of the view that judgment of Faiza Choudhary v.
State of J&K (supra) has no application to the present case as DNB conducts
a biennial admission and no seat is carried forward to the succeeding year.
7. Further, as there is no vacant seat as of today, this Court is of the
opinion that the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for petitioner is
unfounded. Consequently, for all the foregoing reasons, present writ
petition and application are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 20, 2014
rn
