Delhi High Court
Sheetal vs Panna Dai School Of Nursing on 8 December, 2021
$~5 (2021 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- December 08, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 7848/2020 & CM APPL. 25764/2020
SHEETAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Suneet Gupta, Advocate.
versus
PANNA DAI SCHOOL OF NURSING ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nupur Agrawal and
Ms. Tara Narula, Advocates for
R-1 (Mobile No. 9810037337).
Mr. Praveen Khattar,
Advocate, for R-2/ Delhi
Nursing Council.
Mr. V.S.R. Krishna and Mr. V
Shashank Kumar, Advocates
(Mobile No. 9910800508) for
R-3/ Indian Nursing Council.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
1. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to the respondent
No.1- Panna Dai School of Nursing for the B.Sc (General Nursing and
Midwifery) course in the academic session 2020-21. She applied
pursuant to an advertisement issued on 14.08.2020. After the
declaration of the selection list by the respondent No.1 towards the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
end of September, 2020, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent i.e.
Panna Dai College of Nursing directing it to stay the
admission outside Delhi SC category seat.
II. Allot the aforesaid seat to the petitioner since the she
being from the same category and having higher marks
than the present allottee is rightful deserving candidate
as in the present scenario cutoff for outside Delhi SC
category student is lower than Delhi SC category
students, which is in violation of Article 15 of the
constitution.
III. Any other relief which this honorable court deems fit
and proper in addition to aforementioned reliefs being
sought, for which the petitioner would forever be
obliged."
2. By an order dated 19.10.2020, it was recorded as follows:-
"1. Learned counsel for the respondent states that dehors
the controversy raised in the present petition about a seat
being reserved for an SC candidate from outside Delhi,
the petitioner does not qualify even if that seat was to be
allotted to a Delhi candidate. It is stated that the
petitioner has claimed to have scored 83.75% which is
erroneous. She has at best scored 75.25% ignoring the
marks of the subjects i.e. Hindi Elective and Hindi Music
Vocal which are not mentioned in the prospectus as
applicable for preparing the merit list.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesaid
contention saying that there is nothing in the prospectus
which shows that the marks in Hindi Elective and Hindi
Music Vocal are not to be added for the purpose of
determining the position in the merit list.
3. Let a short counter-affidavit be filed within two weeks.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
4. List on 06.11.2020."
3. The petitioner's contention regarding the subjects to be
considered in computing the relative merit of each candidate were also
recorded in a subsequent order dated 08.01.2021. At the request of Dr.
Suneet Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Delhi Nursing
Council and the Indian Nursing Council were impleaded as party
respondents to the writ petition.
4. During the course of further hearing, Ms. Nupur Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1, stated that the said
respondents have prepared a notional merit list based on the subjects
which the petitioner contends ought to have been considered.
According to Ms. Agrawal, the petitioner would have still not
qualified for admission. It was recorded in an order dated 21.10.2021
as follows:-
"2. By the order dated 17.09.2021 the respondent no. 1
was required to place on record a notional merit list of
candidates on the basis of the three best subjects
excluding English. Pursuant to the said order, the
respondent no.1 has filed a notional merit list.
3.However, the list has been prepared by including only
those subjects mentioned in the circular of the Delhi
Nursing Council dated 02.05.2017. It is the petitioner‟s
case that her best three subjects are required to be
considered dehors the said list.
4.Dr. Sumeet Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that in the event the petitioner would not have
qualified on merit even on a calculation based upon the
aforesaid contention, the petitioner will not be interested
in pursuing the writ petition. The preparation of a merit
list on the lines suggested by Dr. Gupta would assist in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
narrowing the controversy in the present petition. The
respondent no.1 is therefore directed to place on record a
notional merit list based upon the three best subjects
excluding English of each candidate, without reliance
upon the circular of the Delhi Nursing Council dated
02.05.2017. Affidavit be filed within two weeks."
5. The notional merit list has since been placed on record. The
comparative list has been prepared on the basis of the merit of the
candidates, taking into consideration only those subjects which the
petitioner contends ought to be included. It enumerates all the
candidates who have applied for admission in the Scheduled Castes
category ["SC category"] from Delhi region. Ms. Agrawal states that
the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 15 in the said list, although,
there were only three seats available in Delhi region SC category.
Those three selected candidates rank higher than the petitioner in the
notional merit list, being at ranks 3, 5 and 13.
6. Dr. Gupta submits that this does not conclude the matter against
the petitioner. He states that the petitioner's concern in this writ
petition is not only against the manner of computation of the
respective merit of the candidates, but also against the respondent
No.1's conduct in dividing the four seats available for SC candidates
between the categories of Delhi and Outside Delhi candidates. He
submits that a reservation for In-State candidates is permissible, but all
candidates ought to have been considered for the seats in the Outside
Delhi category. Dr. Gupta relies upon three judgments of the Supreme
Court in this connection: DN Chanchala vs. State of Mysore & Ors
(1971) 2 SCC 293, Indra Sawhney & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, and Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of
UP & Ors (2010) 3 SCC 119.
7. Without entering into the merits of this contention, I am of the
view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in this
writ petition. The advertisement pursuant to which she applied
contained "BREAKUP OF SEATS" as follows:-
State General OBC SC ST Destitute
Outside 02 01 01 - -
Delhi
It thus clearly made a distinction between the "Delhi" region and the
"Outside Delhi" region.
8. In the application form submitted by the petitioner, she
indicated that she had passed the qualifying examination from Delhi.
The petitioner did not raise these grievances with regard to the
bifurcation between Delhi candidates and Outside Delhi candidates
until after the result was declared. The contention of Dr. Gupta (i.e.,
that reservation is permissible in favour of candidates of a particular
region, but the remaining one seat ought to be considered on an All-
India basis), is a matter of interpretation of the eligibility conditions,
which ought to have been raised at the relevant time. The judgments
of the Supreme Court inter alia in National Board of Examinations vs.
G Anand Ramamurthy & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 515 [paragraph 7] and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
W.B Central School Service Commission and Ors vs. Abdul Halim and
Ors (2019) 18 SCC 39 [paragraph 30-31] also make it clear that the
interpretation of eligibility conditions is generally a matter left to the
academic authorities and the writ court is slow to interfere in the
absence of manifest arbitrariness or perversity. The fact that the
petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to this
advertisement and did not ventilate the grievances at the right time
also comes in her way.
9. Further, even considering the petitioner's case on the basis
claimed by her, she does not contend that she would have qualified on
merit in the Unreserved category. Four seats would have been
available in the SC category. As far as those seats are concerned, the
notional merit list counting the subjects which the petitioner contends
ought to be counted, places her at serial No. 15. It is too far-fetched to
suggest that she would have secured admission at serial No. 15 if only
four seats were available. Thus, even if all the petitioner's contentions
are taken to be accepted, she would not have succeeded in gaining
admission to the course in question in the academic session 2020-21.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.
11. The writ petition, alongwith the pending application, is
therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2021/„vp‟
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:10.12.2021
