Delhi High Court
Sarthak Aeron vs Union Of India And Anr on 26 August, 2016
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7168/2016 & CM No.29471/2016(stay)
SARTHAK AERON ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr Joginder Sukhija, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr R.K.Gupta and Mr M.K.Singh, Advocates for AIIMS.
Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, Advocate for R-1/Union of India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a mandamus
directing respondent No.2, i.e. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(AIIMS), to admit petitioner against the vacant seat for MD (FMT) at its
Bhubneshwar Campus.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/AIIMS, New Delhi had made a
statement that AIIMS at New Delhi was only involved with the initial
counselling process and spot counseling is to be conducted by the respective
Campuses. On the said statement, AIIMS, Bhubneshwar, was impleaded as
respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of
the notice issued to the respondent No.3 with a receipt of Dr. Pravesh Ranjan
Mishra, who is stated to be the Registrar of AIIMS, Bhubneshwar. The
same is taken on record.
3. Notice issued to respondent No.3 has been duly served. None appears
for AIIMS, Bhubneshwar. None had appeared on 22.08.2016. Accordingly,
AIIMS, Bhubneshwar is proceeded as ex-parte.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the
spot counseling for vacant seats at the Bhubneshwar Campus, notice was
issued on 29.07.2016 requiring applicants to come for spot counselling on
30.07.2016.
5. It is contended that as per the prospectus issued by AIIMS, New
Delhi, all communications and notices were to be posted on the website
'www.aiimsexam.org'. It is contended that the respondent No.3/AIIMS,
Bhubneshwar did not post any such information on the said website
informing the candidates about the spot counseling on 30.07.2016.
6. It is thus contended that since the information was not posted on the
website, as mentioned in the prospectus, the petitioner could not reach for
the counseling on 30.07.2016. The petitioner became aware of the spot
counseling only on 01.08.2016 and thereafter, has been approaching AIIMS,
Bhubneshwar, however, they have not acceded to the request of the
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the AIIMS, New Delhi submits that as per his
information, one seat is still vacant at AIIMS, Bhubneshwar.
8. Since the prospectus for the said Course clearly stated that all
notifications/announcements as well as addendums would be posted on the
website 'www.aiimsexam.org' and admittedly, notice for the vacant seats
for MD (FMT) was not posted on the said website for spot counselling on
30.07.2016, the petitioner, if otherwise, eligible, could not have been denied
an opportunity to appear for the counseling.
9. In view of the above, the respondent No.3 is directed to conduct spot
counselling for the vacant seat, if any, on or before 31.08.2016, since that is
the last date for admission, by posting a notice on its website as well as on
the website 'www.aiimsexam.org'
10. Respondent No.3 may also give due publicity for the spot counseling
directed to be held. The petitioner, if otherwise eligible, would be entitled to
participate in the spot counseling.
11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
12. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
AUGUST 26, 2016/'sn' SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
