Delhi High Court
Dr. Navroz Mehta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 August, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 31.07.2020
Date of judgment: 28.08.2020
+ W.P.(C) 3944/2020
DR.NAVROZ MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak,
Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak,
Mr. Kapil Gaur and Mr. Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Advs. for
UOI with Major Arjun Katoch and Lt. Col. J.K. Sharma
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (JUDGMENT)
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate direction
to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in Post Graduate
(PG) counselling to be held on 09.07.2020 for admission to Post Graduate courses
at any of the eight medical colleges as per petitioner's merit without insistence
upon production of original certificates under clause 20(f) and 21(f) of The
Information Bulletin which debars the petitioner's candidature because of his
admission in a PG Medical course elsewhere.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had in the previous year appeared for
counselling for the Post Graduate course in one of the 8 colleges run by respondent
No.2 i.e. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services. However, the
petitioner's candidature for counselling was rejected on the ground that his weight
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 1
was over 11.5 kg more than the maximum permissible. As a result it is stated that 6
candidates with lower ranks got selected and the petitioner was rejected. The
petitioner states that he had worked hard and brought his weight within the
permissible range to fulfil the dream of joining PG at Respondent No.2's Medical
College.
3. The petitioner appeared for the NEET-PG-2020 held by National Board of
Examination on 5.1.2020. In the said examination he secured an All Ind ia Rank of
13122, Petitioner registered for AFMS Counseling. Among the eligible candidates
he has a rank of 2515. On 13.5.2020 a notice regarding AFMS PG counselling was
issued calling upon candidates whose name figured in the List of Eligibility to
report for medical examination alongwith their documents.
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2's Information
Bulletin in paragraph 20(f) denies eligibility to any candidate who has taken
admission in some other medical college in a PG course. The Petitioner had taken
admission in Guwahati Medical College as the PG counselling of respondent No.2
was inordinately delayed. It is pleaded that the mere fact of taking admission there
cannot deny the petitioner of his right for being considered for admission at
Respondent No.2's college.
Further, the Information Bulletin in paragraph 21(f) requires the eligible
candidates to produce certificates in original of the educational record at the time
of counselling. Paragraph 23(f) also states that where candidates are unable to
submit their original certificates, they will not be considered for admission to the
counselling irrespective of the merit or entitlement. The petitioner, however, states
that he will not be in a position to produce the said documents at the counselling on
09.07.2020 in original as the documents have been submitted to Govt. Medical
College, Guwahati as the petitioner is already admitted in a PG course there.
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 2
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is being denied
admission although he satisfies all the criteria of rank or eligibility for admission to
Respondent No.2's Medical College. It is pleaded that this is contrary to the settled
legal position stated by this court in Dr. Shivam Chugh vs. National Board
Examinations & Ors, MANU/DE/3345/2019.
5. Respondent No.3 Directorate General of Health Services, Medical
Counselling Committee, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has filed a short
affidavit. In the affidavit it has been pointed out that the Directorate General of
Health Services has been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct online
counselling for allotment of Post Graduate (MD/MS/Diploma and MDS) seats to
eligible and qualified candidates in participating Government Medical/Dental
Colleges of India under 50% of All India Quota every year in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand S. BIJI vs. State of Kerala, (1993) 3
SCC 80. Further, in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Dar-Us-Slam
Educational Trust and Others vs. Medical Council of India and Others,
MANU/SCOR/22417/2017 the Directorate General of Health Services is also
conducting online counselling for allotment of 100% Post
Graduate/MD/MS/Diploma and MDS) with All India character in participating
deemed Universities across the country. The allotment of seats is being made to
eligible and qualified candidates as per their merit and rank based in the NEET
examinations conducted by National Board of Examination for PG-NEET for the
Academic Year 2017-18 onwards. It is also stated that pursuant to the directions
issued by the Supreme Court of India in Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust and Ors.
vs Medical Council of India and Ors. (Supra) the following policy is followed:-
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 3
"After the second round of counseling for All India Quota seats, the students
who take admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed /
permitted to vacate the seats. This would ensure that very few seats are
reverted to the State Quota and also All India Quota seats are filed by the
students from the all India merit list only. The students who take admission
and secure admission in Deemed Universities pursuant to the second round
of counseling conducted by the DGHS shall not be eligible to participate in
any other counseling."
It is stated that the same is also mentioned in the couns elling scheme of the NEET
PG 20 uploaded in the MCC Website on 12.3.2020.
6. The affidavit further states that in view of the fact that the petitioner has
been allotted a seat in round II of counselling and has reported to the allotted
college, he stands admitted in the said college and holds a seat. In view of the
stated policy, he is not eligible to take part in any other counselling. It is further
stated that regarding candidates who participate in AFMS screening, they are
required to register under AFMS at the time of registration and fulfil their
eligibility criteria.
7. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter affidavit. It is stated that the Director
General, Armed Forces Medical Services are only carrying out physical admission
to the PG course under the direction of DG Health Services and Medical
Counselling Committee. It is reiterated that the process of admission is carried out
as per the Information Bulletin for PG Courses in AFMS Institutions through
NEET- PG 2020 counselling/ online allotment process. The eligibility criteria for
PG Medical/Dental seats conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee, was
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 4
strictly applicable. It is also stated that the eligibility criteria as stated in the
Information Bulletin in Clause 20(f) specially mandates that a candidate who is
already pursuing any PG course shall not be eligible for PG course. This has also
been clarified in Clause 21(f)(vi) to (x), (xiv), (xv). Clause 23(f) specially provides
that if a candidate fails to provide all the necessary original certificates at the time
of admission, he will not be eligible for admission. Apex B which is a declaration
also states in clause 8 that "I am not pursuing any PG course at present". The
observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Dar Us-Slam Educational Trust
v. MCI & Ors. (Supra) are reiterated.
It is further stated that due to inadvertent delay in conducting of AFMS PG
Couns elling owing to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown situation this year, many
candidates have already joined the PG seats in various colleges in round II of All
India Quota Counselling. Allowing the petitioner to attend the AFMS PG
Counselling with only the photocopies of the documents would attract
representations from all such candidates who would be willing to join the AFMS
and such an exemption will not be fair to the petitioner only. It is further spelt out
that there may be multiple issues if such candidates who have already taken
admission in PG courses in other institutions are allowed to participate in the
Counselling. The multiples issues are stated as follows:
"(a). The college where the candidate has deposited the original
documents may not return the same in view of the MCC notice
referred above and the same may be seen as contempt of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(b). Even if some of the students are able to resign from their
respective institutions to join the AFMS colleges, it will lead to
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 5
representations by candidates lower in merit who have not joined
any other college and were waiting for AFMS PG counselling.
(c). The resignation of any candidate to join AFMS institutes is
also likely to cause representation from candidates lower in merit
from the AIQ allotment asking for an up gradation. There is
otherwise likely to be a wastage of these PG seats.
(d). AFMS may be required to hold multiple rounds of
counselling to fill all PG seats even if one such candidate is unable
to bring the original documents. This is not feasible due to the
scarcity of time and movement of candidates involved.
(e). Despite the fact that AFMS is likely to get candidates lower
in merit this year due to the exceptional circumstances, the
provision of producing the original documents at the time of PG
Counselling is required to ensure that the counselling is conducted
with allotment of maximum number of PG Seats in AFMS as well
as to avoid the wastage of any seats of AIQ allotted by the MCC to
abide by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
8. It is also pointed out that this court had on 07.07.2020 declined to pass an
interim order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal
before the Division Bench of this court, which was dismissed by the Division
Bench.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has strongly urged as follows:
i) He submits that it is the duty of this court to uphold the issue of merit on
principles. It is pleaded that the petitioner on merits is entitled to participate
in the counselling for the AFMS PG courses and hence should be entitled to
participate in the said counselling. It is further stated that respondent No.3
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 6
should have done All India Quota Counselling only after DG AFMS,
respondent No.2 had completed its Counselling. Last year this was the
pattern followed. So, it is pleaded that clause 20(f) of the Admission
Brochure be quashed.
ii) It is further pleaded that the principles of estoppel as stated under Section
115 of the Evidence Act would apply. A meritorious candidate cannot be left
out on the stated basis.
iii) It is further pleaded that the criteria imposed by AFMS is impossible for
performance. The petitioner would have to give up his confirmed seat for a
PG course allotted in The All India Quota Counselling for a chance to
participate in the counselling to be held by respondent No.2. Thus, it is
pleaded that this is impractical and arbitrary. It is further stated that most of
those who are selected would be lower in merit than the petitioner.
iv) It is further pleaded that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dar- Us-
Slam Educational Trust v. MCI & Ors. (supra) does not apply to the facts
of this case.
v) It is further pleaded that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this court. Up to 26.06.2020, the petitioner did not have any
admission in any PG course. The last date to confirm the seat was
30.06.2020. It is further stated that the petitioner joined the course of PG in
Guwahati Medical College out of compulsion and not by choice. So, the
cause of action essentially arose on 26.06.2020. Hence, there is no delay on
the part of the petitioner.
10. I may look at the Information Bulletin for PG Courses in AFMS NEET
2020. Clause 20(f) of the Information Bulletin reads as follows:
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 7
"20(f) A candidate who is already pursuing any PG course shall not be
eligible for admission to PG course."
Similarly, reference may be had to the clause 21(f) of the Information Bulletin,
which reads as follows:
"21(f)List of certificates to be submitted in original by selected candidates at
the college on the day of admission:-
xxxx
Applicants without the above documents will be summarily rejected."
Similarly reference may be had to the clause 23(f) of the Information Bulletin,
which reads as follows:
"23(f) The candidates who have been issued the admission letter shall
produce all the original certificates for verification as applicable.
Candidates without documents in original at the time of admission will
not be eligible for admission to the college even if he/she has got the
necessary merit."
Appendix B of the Information Bulletin which details the format of a declaration to
be given by the candidates states in clause 8 of the format as follows:
"I am not pursuing any PG course at present."
A perusal of the above clauses of the Information Bulletin which binds the
candidates clearly shows that where a candidate had taken admission in a PG
course in any other institutions and he is pursuing the said course, he is
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 8
ineligible to be considered for the counselling to be held for the aforesaid PG
courses in AFMS Institutions. The admitted fact is that the petitioner had
taken admission in the Guwahati Medical College for the PG course. He was
hence ineligible to attend the counseling in question. Further candidates at the
counseling also had to submit the original documents. The Petitioner was not
in possession of the original documents. The documents are in possession of
the Guwahati Medical College. Petitioner is not in a position to supply the
original documents to respondent No.2 at the time of counselling. Hence the
petitioner was ineligible under the provisions of the aforesaid
Information Bulletin for a PG seat with AFMS Colleges.
11. I may look at the legal position regarding the Status of the terms of the
Information Bulletin. Reference may be had to the judgment of a co-ordinate
Bench of this court in the case of Priyanka Chaudhary vs National Board of
Examinations, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5691 where it was held as follows:-
"1. The petitioners are candidates, who applied for admission to the
Diplomate of National Board Centralized Entrance Test. It is
contended that in the entrance test, the petitioners got ranks between
29 to 119. Based on their merit all the petitioners were invited for the
first round of counseling and petitioners as per the then available seats
exercised their option and took confirmed seats in different
disciplines.
2. It is contended that post the first round of counseling certain
candidates, who had taken admission opted out and accordingly the
seats opted by those candidates fell vacant and are now included in the
second round of counseling which would commence from
21st October, 2016.
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 9
3. It is contended that the petitioners who are far higher in merit
should also be eligible for participating in the second round of
counseling and given an opportunity to opt for the seats which have
fallen vacant. One example that has been cited is that a seat in
radiology in Artemis Hospital, Gurgaon was opted by a candidate who
ranked 24 in the entrance examination. The said candidate has not
joined the course and accordingly the said seat is now available and
has been included in the second round of counseling. It is submitted
that the said seat is a much sought after seat and is being offered to
candidates who rank about 6001.
Xxxx
9. Clause 13.7 of the Information Bulletin reads as under:
"Candidates opting for a confirmed seat are NOT
eligible to participate in subsequent round(s) of
counseling irrespective of their
joining/nonjoining/resignation from the seat already
opted for."
10. The petitioners had participated in the first round of counseling
without demur. Perusal of the information bulleting shows that
candidates had the option not to appear in the first round of counseling
and could have chosen to wait for the subsequent rounds. However,
once the candidate has exercised the option to participate in
counseling and has opted for a confirmed seat, as per the information
bulletin, the candidate is not eligible for participation in subsequent
rounds of counseling.
11. The petitioners were well aware of the rules laid down by the
information bulletin and despite the same the petitioners participated
in the counseling process without any demur. The petitioners have
opted for confirmed seats and have taken admission. No doubt that the
petitioners are meritorious, but on account of the application of the
rules as laid down by the information bulletin, which is clear in terms
of its application, the petitioners are clearly ineligible to participate in
the second round of counseling commencing from 21st October, 2016.
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 10
12. Similar view has been expressed by the co-ordinate bench
in Shikha Aggarwal (supra) wherein it is held as under:
"6. The cause of heartburn of the petitioner is that the first
round of counseling is held for the top in the merit list to pick
the stream and college/institute/hospital of his choice and the
second round is held for the next in the merit list alongwith
the opportunity to the ones who have already participated in
the first round to change their stream in case some seats fall
vacant, but the respondent board does not envisage the
participation of the students who have already participated in
the first round to again participate in the second round and
thus robs the candidate the opportunity to take up another
stream which could be available in the second round and was
not available at the first. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is that the premier Institute such as AIIMS and
others give provisional admissions in the first round leaving
the window of opportunity open for them to change their
choice in the second round and thus the same should be the
procedure followed by the respondent Board. The National
Board of Examinations administering the DNB degree has
the liberty to frame its own rules and regulations and the
rules of counseling or any other cannot be termed as
unreasonable by comparing with the rules set forth by the
AIIMS or any other body conducting examinations.
7. It is also a settled legal position that a candidate after
participating in the selection process of taking the entrance
examination and the counseling process cannot turn around
and challenge the same as the rules and guidelines framed by
the respondent-Board were within the knowledge of the
petitioner before participating in the same and therefore, the
petitioner thus waives off her right to challenge the said
counseling procedure once having taken the said
examination. It would be relevant here to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay
Malik v. State of Uttranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171 which has
reiterated the said legal position in the following words:
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 11
"In the present case, as already pointed out, the
writ petitioners-respondents herein participated
in the selection process without any demur; they
are estopped from complaining that the selection
process was not in accordance with the Rules. If
they think that the advertisement and selection
process were not in accordance with the Rules
they could have challenged the advertisement and
selection process without participating in the
selection process. This has not been done."
(Underlining supplied)
Xxxx
14. The Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane (supra) has held as
under:
"2. A learned Single Judge of the High Court interpreting
the rules directed that when after the first counselling any
subsequent counselling is decided to be held for allocation
of remaining seats including those which have fallen
vacant subsequent to the first counselling, the same shall
be notified to the public and the first date of each
subsequent counselling will be reserved for the candidates
who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who
wish to change their seats and out of the candidates, who
were allotted seats at the first counselling, who turn up for
subsequent counselling on the first date which is served for
such students, distribution of seats which have fallen
vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be
done according to merit. The change of seat to these
students who have been allotted seats during the first and
earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of
seats which have fallen vacant after the first counselling
and not of the left over seats.
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 12
3. Aggrieved by these directions, an appeal was preferred
by the Director General of Medical Education and
Training. The Division Bench, after considering the
scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein and
the decisions of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court
in Veena Gupta (Dr.) v. University of Delhi and of High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jain v. Controller of
Examinations, held that any seat which is available and
which has not been included in any of the three counselling
by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit amongst
the wait listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is
available, the same should be included in the initial
counselling. If by mistake a seat is not included in the
initial counselling then the effect is that nobody opts for
the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all
the candidates for counselling, the result would be that all
the candidates who took part in the first counselling should
be given a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same
seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there
will be one seat more, which would become available for
the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will
start leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting
the seat back for counselling for all candidates would,
therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had
already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be
somewhat unfair, there is no alternative, apart from
leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the said seat to the
wait listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the
academic course commences the same will have to be
completed within a period of three years and if the
counselling goes on continuously for a long period then it
may not be possible to fulfill that condition and thereby
upset the course of study itself. On this basis, the Division
Bench set aside the order made by the learned Single
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 13
Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against this order and
connected matters that the present appeals are filed by
special leave.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions put forth
before the High Court and before us and we are of the
view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and
Delhi High Court in Dr. Veena Gupta case and the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jain case is in
accordance with the reason and stands the test of
rationality. It is clear that once an option is exercised by a
candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject
and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in
subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the
process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended
by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the
academic course within the stipulated period.
5. The grievance made is that if a choice subject like
surgery and medicine is given up by a candidate and that
seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate who is lower
in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous
circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the
student, who has been allotted a seat in medicine, giving
up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and thereafter
the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in
the merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test
of reasonableness of the Rule."(Underlining supplied)"
12. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the
case of Dr. Sandeep P.S. vs Government of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1263
where the court held as follows:-
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 14
"32. I have considered the rival submissions. I must, at the outset, point
out that Clause 4.5 of the handbook which is under challenge does in
fact affects the right of candidates who are allotted seats in the first
round of counselling as per their choice to retain the seat and participate
in the second round of counselling also in order to better their chances.
The moot question therefore is as to whether such a provision could be
subject matter of challenge by way of a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Various statistics have been relied upon by
the respective counsel to justify their respective stand. Be that as it may,
as pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court in various decisions
the attempt of the court should be to ensure that merit is not sacrificed
while framing rules or procedure for counselling and admission to such
super speciality courses particularly in the field of medicine. While the
petitioners would contend that the second respondent which is offering
super speciality postgraduate courses in medicine is bound to follow the
procedure that is suggested by the Medical Council of India for
admission to such postgraduate courses, the second respondent would
claim that it is an autonomous body and it is free to adopt its own
procedure.
33. It is settled law that the prospectus is the vital document which
governs the admission procedure. A candidate who participates in the
selection process based on the prospectus cannot turn around and
challenge the very prospectus or a clause in the prospectus unless it is
shown to be illegal or irrational. This court had in a number of cases
relating to admissions to postgraduate Medical education has
consistently held that the candidates who had applied for admission
based on the conditions set out in the prospectus cannot challenge the
conditions. Of course in the case on hand the petitioners had
approached the court before the first round of counselling had
commenced. However the counselling in effect commenced on 01-05-
2020 and the candidates were required to furnish their online choices by
08-05-2020. The first counselling was done on 22-05-2020. The
petitioners had filed the first writ petition on 17-05-2020 and were
favoured with an interim order on 26-05-2020. The petitioners were
aware of the existence of Clause 4.5 in the handbook even when they
had applied for admission. They had chosen to apply and also indicate
their choices in compliance with the requirements of the instructions in
the handbook. Only after exercising their choices the petitioners chose
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 15
to challenge Clause 4.5 on 17-05-2020. Mr. G. Sankaran, would
vehemently contend that since the petitioners had approached the court
before the first round of counselling itself, there is no delay and they
cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay. I am unable to accept the
said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for more than
one reason. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the second respondent if the petitioners' challenge is
accepted the entire counselling process will have to be restarted in the
sense all the candidates who had been allotted a seat in the first round
of counselling and who had frozen their seats should also be given an
opportunity to take part in the second round of counselling which would
necessarily result in further delay in the process which has already been
delayed by the pandemic. There are about 700 candidates who had
frozen the seats allotted to them in the first round of counselling.
If Clause 4.5 is tweaked and they are also allowed to participate in the
second round of counselling while retaining the seats allotted to them in
the first round those 700 seats should also be shown as seats available
in the second round of counselling. The second respondent in its
counter affidavit has explained as to how this process accumulates more
seats in the mop up round of counselling which go to candidates with
lesser comparative merit. The Honourable Supreme Court in Alapati
Jyostna (Supra) has considered the prevalent situation and after taking
note of the fact that nearly 700 candidates had been allotted seats and
have frozen their seats had refused to issue any directions for the
present year. The Honourable Supreme Court in the said decision has
also recorded the assertions made in the response filed by the Medical
Council of India that a common counselling or a single online
counselling in the coming years would definitely take care of the
grievances. I am therefore of the considered view that it would not be
appropriate for this court to interfere with the counselling at this stage
for the present year.
34. Even on the merits of the challenge, as pointed out by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane, a freak
circumstance by which a candidate with a lesser comparative merit gets
a better choice by virtue of operation of Clause 4.5 cannot be the test
for reasonableness of the rule itself. Apart from the above observation
of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court in at least two
judgements referred to supra namely in Reema Chawala v. University
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 16
of Delhi 2003 SCC OnLine Del 127and Priyanka
Chaudhary v. National Board of Examinations, 2016 SCC OnLine Del
5691, has upheld a similar clause found in the handbooks issued by the
second respondent for the relevant academic years. I am unable to
persuade myself to disagree with the reasons assigned by the
Honourable Delhi High Court in support of its conclusions reached in
the above two decisions. I must point out that the decisions relied upon
by Mr. G. Sankaran relate to the Rules or Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India in respect of admissions to graduate and
postgraduate courses offered by institutions and universities under the
control of the Medical Council of India. Therefore the principles laid
down in those decisions cannot be applied to test the reasonableness of
the rule adopted by the second respondent. In Dr. Divyesh J.
Pathak v. National Board of Examination, the Delhi High Court has
concluded that the second respondent herein is an independent body
and it cannot be contended that it is bound by the advisories of the
Medical Council of India. It has also been pointed out that the Medical
Council of India and the National Board of Examinations are
independent and autonomous bodies, neither can be made bound by the
policy decisions taken by the other. I am therefore constrained to
conclude that the challenge to Clause 4.5 of the handbook cannot
succeed and both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed."
13. In view of the above, the settled legal position is that the terms of the
Admission brochure are binding on the candidates. The petitioner participated in
the NEET-PG counseling in the second round and took admission in the Guwahati
Medical College. When he took the admission he knew fully well that he is opting
out of participating in the counseling for AFMS seats. He has deliberately
knowingly taken the decision to forego his right in participating in the AFMS
counseling. Later on, after the result of AFMS the petitioner cannot be allowed to
turn around and say that the bar on a person who is already admitted in another
post-graduate seats to participate in the counseling by the respondents is illegal and
unfounded.
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 17
That apart, the restriction as stipulated in Clause 20(f) and 21 (f) of The
Information Bulletin cannot said to be unreasonable as it ensures orderly and
timely Selection of Candidates.
14. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH
(JUDGE)
AUGUST , 2020/n/v
W.P.(C)3944/2020 Page 18
