Delhi High Court
Dr. Vivek Kumar vs National Board Of Examination & ... on 23 June, 2020
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 23.06.2020
+ W.P.(C) 3633/2020 & CM 12942/2020
DR. VIVEK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Shashi Kiran, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Kirtiman Singh,
Mr.Rohan Anand, Mr.Waize Ali Noor,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr.Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv. for R-2.
Mr.Dinesh Chand, Executive Director is
present.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner in the present petition is aggrieved of the
Communication dated 14.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.1
informing the petitioner that he was not eligible to participate in the
examination for the "Diplomat of National Board-Post Diploma
Centralized Entrance" (hereinafter referred to as DNB-PDCET) All
Indian Level Exam for the year 2020 on the ground that the petitioner
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 1
had been selected for the said course in January 2018 admission
session and had to discontinue the said course.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that while the
petitioner had been allotted a specialty in Pediatrics from the Northern
Railway Central Hospital in January 2018 session examination and
had joined the said course on 04.06.2018, he was not allowed to
complete that course on account of his absence for valid reasons.
Infact, in spite of the respondent no.1 advising the National Railway
Central Hospital by its letter dated 24.09.2018 to allow the petitioner
to re-join the said course, the said Hospital did not adhere to the
advice and did not allow the petitioner to re-join the said course.
Thereafter, the petitioner gave the All India Examination of 2020 in
which the petitioner again scored a high rank and was allotted Swami
Dayanand Hospital with the specialty as Pediatrics in the first round of
counseling. The examination notice allows the candidate to not to opt
for the hospital allotted in the first round of counseling and instead opt
for the second round of counseling. The petitioner accordingly opted
for the second round of counseling and it is only at that stage that the
respondent no.1 informed the petitioner by the Impugned
Communication that the petitioner was not eligible for the All India
Examination of 2020.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has already suffered by the arbitrary rejection of the hospital to allow
the petitioner to complete the course in January 2018 session, in spite
of the direction of the respondent no.1 as contained in its letter dated
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 2
24.09.2018. In any case, the bar on a candidate appearing for the 2020
examination is only for those students who have not completed the
entire duration prescribed of a medical course. In the present case, the
petitioner had been admitted to the Diploma course in Paediatrics on
04.06.2018, the two year course would come to an end on 03.06.2020,
and therefore, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the
second round of counseling for the 2020 session conducted by the
respondent no. 1.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1
has referred to Clause 1.5 of the „Handbook for Centralized
Counseling for DNB(Post Diploma) Courses January 2018 admission
Session‟ to submits that in the said Handbook it was clearly stipulated
that any candidate opting for confirmed seat in the said counseling,
shall not be eligible to appear in the examination for the entire
duration of the said course that is, for two years. He submits that for
the 2020 examination, the cut-off date for determining the eligibility
of a candidate was 30.11.2019 on which date clearly the petitioner had
not completed the two years ban. Further, placing reliance on Clause
3.4 of the „Information Bulletin for Diplomate of National Board Post
Diploma Central Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate DNB
(Secondary) Courses 2020 Admission Session‟, he submits that it was
clearly stipulated that any candidate who has joined the DNB (Post
Graduate) Course in or after January 2018 admission session would
not be eligible to appear in the said examination. The petitioner having
joined the course in January 2018 admission session was, therefore,
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 3
ineligible for appearing in the 2020 admission session. He also places
reliance on Clause 2.3 of the Handbook for Admission for the 2020
session. He submits that even otherwise the January 2018 admission
course is still continuing and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible
to participate in the 2020 admission session.
5. As far as the 2018 admission session and the submission of the
petitioner that he was not allowed to re-join the said course in spite of
the letter dated 24.09.2018 of the respondent no. 1, the learned counsel
of the respondent no.1 submits that post the letter dated 24.09.2018,
on a complaint being received against the petitioner of the petitioner
having concealed at the time of the admission that he was an employee
of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and was under suspension,
his admission was cancelled by the communication dated 14.11.2018.
He submits that in any case, the present petition does not either
challenge the conditions as set out in the Handbook of Admission or
the letter dated 14.11.2018 informing the petitioner of cancellation of
his admission for the 2018 session. He submits that, therefore, the
Impugned Order has been rightly issued holding the petitioner
ineligible for the 2020 academic session examination.
6. In the Rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that Handbook for Admission for January 2018 session clearly
stipulates that the candidates shall not be eligible only for a period of
two years that is the duration of the course for which they have been
admitted. The said ban having been suffered by the petitioner as on
03.06.2020, the petitioner is eligible for being considered in the
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 4
second counseling for the 2020 examination. She further submits that
the counselling process is still continuing and in fact, the date having
been extended, the petitioner should be shown leniency and should be
allowed to be considered for the said examination.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
8. As far as the admission in the January 2018 session is
concerned, there is no challenge in the present petition to the decision
of the hospital not allowing the petitioner to undertake the course in
spite of the letter dated 24.09.2018 of the respondent no.1. In fact, the
petitioner has not been able to show any document protesting against
the said decision of the hospital. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 has produced before this Court the
letter dated 14.11.2018 cancelling the admission of the petitioner on
the ground of concealment. Though the petitioner submits that the
said letter was not received by the petitioner, as there is no challenge
with respect to the January 2018 examination, this Court need not
proceed any further with the consideration of the said submissions.
Suffice it to say that admittedly the petitioner is not claiming any relief
on the basis of his admission in the 2018 admission session or the
alleged arbitrary manner in which he was not allowed to complete the
said course.
9. Coming to the 2020 admission session, the Information Bulletin
for the 2020 admission session clearly provides, that any candidate
who has joined the DNB Post Diploma course in or after January,
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 5
2018 admission session, would be ineligible to appear for the said
examination. Clause 3.4 of the Information Bulletin for 2020
Admission Session is reproduced herein-below:
"3.4 Candidates already pursuing a MD/MS/DNB
course are not eligible to appear for DNB-PDCET till such
time they have completed the duration of prescribed
course or have been discharged from the course.
Candidates who have joined DNB (Post Diploma) course
in or after January 2018 Admission session are not eligible
to appear in DNB-PDCET 2020 admission session. This
shall be irrespective of their resignation or discontinuation
from the couse due to any reason."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. In the present petition, there is no challenge to the said clause.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed
reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Mabel vs. State of
Haryana 2002 6 SCC 318and of this Court in Dr. Nidhi Goyal vs.
Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi 2015 SCC OnLine
Del 8347, this Court again need not detain itself with this submission
as there is no challenge to Clause 3.4 in the present petition.
11. The submission of the petitioner that the 2018 Handbook of
Admission debars the petitioner from appearing in another entrance
examination for a period of two years only, cannot also be accepted
inasmuch the Information Bulletin for 2020 Admission Session clearly
provides that the eligibility of a candidate for the 2020 examination is
to be determined as on 30.11.2019. Any candidate becoming eligible
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 6
thereafter was not to be considered for the said examination. Merely
because the examination /selection process has continued thereafter,
would not make all the candidates who became eligible after the cut-
off date entitled to appear or seek any relief for the said examination.
In any case, in view of Clause 3.4 of the Information Bulletin, there is
a complete embargo on consideration of a candidate who had taken
admission in the January, 2018 admission process.
12. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. The order shall be uploaded on the website and shall also be
provided to the learned counsels for the parties on the e-mail address
provided.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JUNE 23, 2020
RN
WP(C) No.3633/2020 Page 7
