Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Naveen Jakhar S/O Shri Bhagwan vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 687/2022
1. Dr. Naveen Jakhar S/o Shri Bhagwan, age about 30 years,
resident of Flat No. 211, Elena-2 Kajaria Greens, Bhiwadi,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Surendra Purohit S/o Shri Jogaram Purohit, age about
31 years, resident of Village Chitalwana, Jhalore,
Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Arvind Bishnoi S/o Shri Punmaram Bishnoi, age about
30 years, resident of Wadabhadavi, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Nafeesh Ahmed S/o Ilmuddin, age about 29 years,
resident of Ratangarh, Churu, Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Praveen Kumar S/o Asuram, age about 30 years,
resident of Chitalwana, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Manjeet Singh Ola S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, age
about 32 years, resident of Shastri Nagar, Sikar,
Rajasthan.
7. Dr. Vikas Purushottam S/o Shri S L Purushottam, age
about 30 years, resident of Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
8. Dr. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Gangaram, age about 31
years, resident of Kalda, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
9. Dr. Makhan Lal Yadav S/o Shri MP Yadav, age about 30
years, resident of Rajasamand, Rajasthan.
10. Dr. Hemant Kumar S/o Narsa Ram, age about 31 years,
resident of Sirohi, Rajasthan.
11. Dr. Bala D/o Bhanwar Lal, age about 31 years, resident of
Sanchore, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
12. Dr. Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi S/o Sonaram, age about 30
years, resident of Raniwada, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
13. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Ramlal Vishnoi, age about
29 years, resident of Sewari, Jhalore, Rajasthan.
14. Dr. Kailash Mahla S/o Mohandas, age about 31 years,
resident of Nagaur, Rajasthan.
15. Dr. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Amar Singh, age about 34
years, resident of Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan.
16. Dr. Vipin Yadav S/o Shri Vivekanand, age about 31 years,
resident of Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2022 at 09:54:06 PM)
(2 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
----PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan, Through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director (Public Health), Department of Medical and
Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C -
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chairman, NEET PG Medical and Dental Admission/
Counselling Board -2021 and Principal, Govt. Dental
College, Subhash Nagar, behind T.B. Hospital, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Medical Counselling Committee, Directorate General of
Health Services, Department of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi through Secretary.
----RESPONDENTS
CONNECTED WITH
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1486/2022
Sumit Kumar Saini S/o Niranjan Lal Saini, aged about 34 years,
R/o E-59, Roop Vihar Colony, N.S.Road, Sodala, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Medical
Education Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur 302005
2. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Chairman, NEET PG Medical / Dental 2021
Counseling Board and Principal and Controller, SMS
Medical College and Group of Affiliated Hospital, Jaipur.
5. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2022 at 09:54:06 PM)
(3 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
6. National Medical Commission through its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi.
7. National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences,
through its Executive Director having Registered Office
at Medical Enclave, NAMS Building, Mahatma Gandhi
Marg, Ansar Nagar, New Delhi.
----RESPONDENTS
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.K.Maloo, Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi
and Mr.Ram Pratap Saini, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl.
Advocate General with Mr.Harshal
Tholia, for respondent-State.
Mr.Angad Mirdha, for respondent-NMC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
ORDER
Order Reserved on : 28th January, 2022
REPORTABLE
Date of Order : 1st February, 2022
By the Court:
These writ petitions, since involve common question, as such
with the consent of the counsel for the parties, are decided by this
common order.
2. The petitioners, in the present writ petitions, are in-service
Doctors who have challenged letter/order dated 08.01.2022
whereby the State Government has decided to consider the
experience of in-service Doctors to be counted upto 30.09.2021
for the purpose of award of bonus marks while making admission
in Post Graduate Medical Courses.
3. The facts, in nutshell, as pleaded in the writ petitions are
that the petitioners participated in the National Eligibility-cum-
(4 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
Entrance Test - Postgraduate, 2021 (for short 'NEET PG 2021')
held on 11.09.2021 and all of them were declared successful in
the said examination. The petitioners, being government Doctors
working in the remote, difficult & rural areas, applied as in-service
candidates in NEET PG 2021 examination and they all were
entitled for incentive marks for the services rendered by them in
remote, difficult & rural areas.
4. The petitioners have pleaded that initially a notification dated
14.04.2020 was issued declaring remote, difficult and rural areas
and the relevant date for calculating bonus marks was prescribed
as 30.04.2020.
5. The petitioners have pleaded that for Pre-PG 2021, the State
Government had initially issued a letter dated 18.03.2021
whereby cut-off date for calculating the experience was prescribed
as 30.04.2020.
6. The petitioners have pleaded that surprisingly another
letter/order has been issued on 08.01.2020 by which cut-off date,
for calculation of experience for the purpose of giving
bonus/incentive marks, is extended from 30.04.2021 to
30.09.2021.
7. The petitioners have pleaded that the State Government
surprisingly has made a reference of letter dated 26.10.2021
issued by the Medical Counseling Committee for extending the
date to 30.09.2021 and the said date was only in relation to
completion of internship by MBBS graduates and it had nothing to
do with the in-service Doctors.
(5 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
8. The petitioners have also pleaded that the impugned letter
dated 08.01.2022 permits the candidates to get the benefit of
bonus marks, for which otherwise they are entitled for in the next
year of counseling i.e. 2022 and the National Board of
Examination has also announced the schedule for NEET PG 2022
by holding the said examination on 12.03.2022.
9. Mr.N.K.Maloo, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
has made following submissions:-
9.1 Cut-off date of 30th April of each year was prevailing
practice for the State Government since 2018 for counting
experience of in-service Doctors and long prevailing practice
has been changed by the respondents this year in an
arbitrary manner.
9.2 Granting of bonus marks by counting experience upto
30.09.2021 has completely changed the zone of
consideration/the merit of in-service Doctors, who will
complete their service of 1/2/3 years as on 30.09.2021. The
said change is to the prejudice of the petitioners and other
candidates having cascading effect, which is explained by
citing an example that one person having 513 merit position
shifted to 190 by granting him benefit of one year.
9.3 The State Government, while filing reply in S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.11583/2021 (Jitendra Singh Nitharwal Vs.
State), had specifically taken a stand that candidates are
provided experience on the basis of an ascertained cut-off
date and the same is sacrosanct. Learned Senior Counsel
(6 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
submitted that once the State Government has taken a stand
by filing affidavit on 04.01.2021, the extension of date by
issuing notification dated 08.01.2022 is like taking a U-Turn
and the State Government cannot be permitted to shift its
stand.
9.4 The State Government has not kept in mind the
relevant consideration while changing the date of counting
experience as the category of freshers/MBBS students to
complete their internship during COVID-19 period upto
30.09.2021 is altogether on a different footing and the same
logic does not apply while dealing with the cases of in-
service Doctors as they were already serving in remote,
difficult and rural areas upto a particular time.
9.5 The issue with regard of fixing the cut-off date of
30.09.2021 is required to be adjudicated independently by
this Court as the letter/order dated 08.01.2022 is
independently challenged and this Court in the case of
Dr.Delip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11568/2021 and other
connected cases has not considered the validity of such
letter/order while deciding the writ petitions vide order dated
10.01.2022. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even the
Division Bench while dismissing the appeal filed by Dr.Neha
Choudhary Vs. State of Rajastna & Ors. [D.B.Special
Appeal Writ No.201/2022] and another connected appeal
vide order dated 25.01.2022, though has upheld the order
passed by this Court in the case of Dr.Delip Singh (supra),
(7 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
however, the Division Bench has not touched on any other
aspect of the matter more particularly pertaining to
extension of cut-off date from 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021
under the notification dated 08.01.2022.
10. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions, placed
reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Apex Court:-
(i) P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (9)
SCC 497
(ii) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. reported in
AIR 1991 SC 537
(iii) Opto Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank & Ors. reported in
2021 (6) SCC 707
11. Per contra, Mr.Harshal Tholia appearing on behalf of
Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl.Advocate General has made
following submissions:-
11.1 The issue of extension of cut-off date from 30.04.2021
to 30.09.2021 is no more res integra as the Division Bench
has not only upheld the order passed by this Court in the
case of Dr.Delip Singh (supra) but also held that fixing of
date and granting incentive is a matter of policy and depends
on the discretionary exercise of powers of the State
Government.
11.2 The State Government has taken the decision of
extension of cut-off date, as a matter of policy by keeping in
mind several factors and the letter dated 26.10.2021 issued
by the Medical Counseling Committee extending the date to
30.09.2021 for completion of internship by MBBS graduates
(8 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
may not be the only criteria for extending the cut-off date
but the same has to be looked into by considering the
situation prevailing due to COVID-19.
11.3 The State Government, as a matter of policy, can take
a new decision and separate order can be passed as the
same is State's prerogative.
11.4 The cut-off date if fixed by the competent authority is
having nexus with the object to be achieved, the valid
classification is permissible and the same cannot be termed
as arbitrary.
11.5 Policy of grant of incentive marks, to in-service Doctors
by fixing different cut-off dates, has been made by various
States in the entire country and specifically the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have also fixed different
dates.
12. Learned Counsel Mr.Tholia, in support of his submissions,
placed reliance on the following case law:-
(i) State of Bihar Vs. Ramjee Prasad reported in 1990 (3)
SCC 368
(ii) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal reported
in 1994 (4) SCC 212
(iii) UGC Vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 1996
(10) SCC 536
(iv) Ramrao & Ors. Vs. All India Backward Class Bank
Employees Welfare Association & Ors. reported in 2004
(2) SCC 76
13. Learned Counsel Mr.Angad Mirdha appearing for National
Medical Commission submitted that Regulation 9(IV) of the Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (in short "the
Regulations, 2000") provides that merit of in-service government
(9 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
Doctors will be determined by the government/competent
authority as an incentive upto maximum of 30% of the marks
obtained in National Eligiblity-cum-Entrance Test and
remote/difficult/rural areas are required to be notified by the State
Government/competent authority from time to time.
14. Mr.Mirdha further submitted that the entire calendar, right
from commencement of admission process till completion of
counselling, has always been fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
from time to time and in the present Sessions of 2021-22 since
the matter was subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relating to EWS/OBC, now decks have been cleared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the entire process of counselling is now being
done, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Counsel further submitted that plea of consistent practice
followed by the State Government of fixing 30th April of every year
as cut-off date might have been relevant in those past years but in
the present year when the admissions are being finalized now, if
the State Government has taken 30.09.2021 as the cut-off date
for in-service Doctors, no fault can be found with such decision.
16. Counsel further submitted that there are always some
candidates who have disadvantage or advantage whenever such
decisions are taken by the competent authorities by fixing the cut-
off date, however, the same should not result into disturbing the
entire admission process and this kind of dispute is required to be
settled by giving quietus at this stage itself.
(10 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
18. This Court finds that in the first series of litigation
[Dr.Jitendra Singh Nitharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11583/2021) & connected writ
petitions], the petitions were filed by the candidates who were
claiming parity with the Doctors who have completed their
internship upto 30.09.2021 and as such relief was sought in the
court, in the nature of direction, that parity was required to be
maintained between in-service Doctors and those candidates who
have completed their internship by a common date. This Court
vide order dated 10.01.2022 declared those writ petitions as
infructuous, since during pendency of the writ petitions, the State
Government issued the notification dated 08.01.2022 whereby
cut-off date was changed from 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021.
19. This Court came across second series of litigation whereby
candidates sought a direction from this Court that the cut-off date
of 30.09.2021 of counting experience was not correct and the
experience upto 31.10.2021 may be counted for the purpose of
awarding bonus marks and this Court, considering the issuance of
notification dated 08.01.2022, found that the State Government
had taken a conscious decision to consider candidature of in-
service Doctors who have gained their experience upto
30.09.2021 and the eligibility & criteria for counting service was
primarily required to be fixed by the State Government by keeping
in mind several factors and if the cut-off date has been changed
by the State Government, no fault was found in such decision
(11 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
making process. The relevant portion of the order dated
10.01.2022, passed by this Court in the case of Dr.Delip Singh
(supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
"This Court finds that the State Government has already
taken a conscious decision to consider the candidature of the
in-service Doctors who have gained their experience upto
30.09.2021 and they have not decided to count the
experience upto 30.04.2021, as notified initially.
The eligibility or criteria for counting services is primarily
required to be fixed by the State Government by keeping in
mind several factors and if State Government is now
changed the cut off date for counting experience till
30.09.2021, no fault can be found, in such decision making
process.
This Court further finds that if the petitioners have put in the
required number of service, as per notification dated
08.01.2022, the State Government is bound to consider their
cases."
20. The order passed by this Court dated 10.01.2022 was put to
challenge by way of special appeal before the Division Bench and
the Division Bench in the case of Dr.Neha Choudhary (supra) while
dismissing the special appeal vide order dated 25.01.2022, has
held as follows:-
"14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record we find that the policy to
grant incentive marks to in-house doctors serving in difficult,
remote or rural areas has been framed by the State Govern-
ment by virtue of which for every completed year of service
in such year 10% weightage would be granted for the pur-
pose of PG medical course. This would be over and above the
marks scored by the candidate in NEET examination. Ordi-
narily such experience would be considered upto 30 th April of
the relevant year. Initially in the present admission process
also the cut off date prescribed by the State Government
was 30.04.2021. However initially on account of spread of
corona virus the conducting of NEET examination itself had
to be postponed. The examination could be completed only
on 11.09.2021. Even thereafter the counselling could not
start on account of legal controversies regarding reservations
provided in PG medical courses. The State Government tak-
ing cognizance of such developments has on its own ex-
tended the time limit from 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021. In our
view the same is principally a matter of policy and depends
on the discretionary exercise of powers of the State Govern-
(12 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
ment. To begin with grant of incentive itself is a policy matter
and based on the discretion of State authorities. Any exten-
sion for considering the experience is also part of such dis-
cretionary exercise of the powers. Unless it is shown that
such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this
Court would not interfere in such policy matters.
15. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the counsel for
NMC, the policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candi-
date has a vested right to claim such incentives, that too de-
hors the State policy. Such cut off date cannot be kept fluc-
tuating. The date of counselling would depend on several
factors. The suggestion that experience gained by the candi-
date right till the first date of counseling is therefore not ac-
ceptable. There is yet another angle to this issue. The pe-
rusal of the State policy would show that the incentive is
granted to ensure that sufficient numbers of doctors are
available to serve in remote, difficult and rural areas. On ac-
count of difficult living conditions in such areas these doctors
would also suffer a degree of handicap in their preparations
of PG medical entrance examinations. To offset such handi-
cap incentive is being offered. Once examination is over, the
candidate cannot complain of being disadvantaged in making
the preparations as compared to the other candidates. The
cut off date of 30.09.2021 prescribed by the State Govern-
ment therefore requires no
interference.
16. In the result, appeals are dismissed."
21. This Court finds that the Division Bench has observed that
issue with regard to extension of date under the notification dated
08.01.2022 was pending before this Court, as such the Division
Bench did not touch on any aspect of the challenge made by the
candidates, accordingly, this Court is required to adjudicate on the
said issue.
22. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that past practice since 2018 has always been to fix 30 th April of
each year, suffice it to say by this Court that if due to COVID-19
situation prevalent in the entire country, the entire schedule of
examination and admission has been affected, the competent
authority if fixes the cut-off date by keeping in mind the
(13 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
experience of in-service Doctors in remote, difficult and rural
areas having an object to be achieved, the past practice cannot
prevail in changed circumstances and as such no fault can be
found in the same.
23. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that since the State Government, while filing reply in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.11583/2021 (Jitendra Singh Nitharwal Vs. State) has
taken a specific stand that sacrosanct date is 30.04.2021, the
same cannot be changed, this Court is of the view that if the State
Government has kept in its mind the object of giving the
permissible benefit i.e. maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in
National Eligiblity-cum-Entrance Test, as per the Regulation 9(IV)
of the Regulations, 2000, the decision of the State Government
cannot be termed as arbitrary or dehors any statutory provision.
24. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that reference in the notification dated 08.01.2021 of a letter
dated 26.10.2021, issued by the Medical Counseling Committee,
referring to cut-off date for completion of internship for MBBS
graduates by extending it to 30.09.2021 and the same has no
nexus with the present extension of date, suffice it to say by this
Court that even if the cut-off date for completion of internship has
been extended in the letter dated 26.10.2021, the State
Government has full authority to extend such date on its own by
keeping the relevant factors in mind.
25. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that change of merit affecting the entire merit of the candidates
by granting them benefit upto 30.09.2021 resulting into great
(14 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
disparity, this Court finds that on account of grant of certain bonus
marks if the candidate becomes entitled for placement in merit,
the same cannot be termed as illegal or affecting right of any
other candidate.
26. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that zone of consideration has been extended or rule of game has
been changed after the game has started, suffice it to say by this
Court that in the matter of admission, if the eligibility is prescribed
by the competent authority and certain benefits are to be given to
the candidates, as per the policy of the State Government, the
same cannot result into violating any zone of consideration or rule
of game being changed after the game has started.
27. This Court finds that the State Government has initially taken
a decision by fixing the cut-off date of 30.04.2021 and later on, as
a policy decision, the State Government has changed the cut-off
date to 30.09.2021. The State Government, in its wisdom and as
a matter of policy, thought that benefit to in-service Doctors is
required to be extended upto 30.09.2021, as incentive of bonus
marks. If the State Government has found that rendering of
service in remote, difficult and rural areas entitles a person to
certain incentive/bonus marks, then the decision of State
Government to confer such benefit upto a particular date cannot
be termed as whimsical or malafide. The grant of incentive may
not come to an end only by issuing initial notification but if
continuation in service in remote, difficult and rural areas gives
benefit to in-service Doctors then same is in consonance with the
object of granting benefit to the in-service Doctors.
(15 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
28. This Court finds that fixation of a cut-off date, may be in a
given case, cause hardship to a candidate or group of candidates
but that per se does not lead to the conclusion that such fixation
of date itself is arbitrary. Any cut-off date, which is fixed by the
State Government, will always be affecting some of the candidates
but at the same time, fixation of cut-off date, if has a degree of
inherent randomness, causing hardship to certain group of
candidates, the same cannot be a ground to declare such date as
arbitrary.
29. This Court finds that the writ Courts, under Article 226 of the
Constitution, may not interfere in every decision that is taken on
the administrative side and fixing of a cut-off date, will be out of
purview of a writ Court until the same is either fixed by keeping in
mind the whimsical considerations or fixed in a malafide manner.
30. As regards reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2007
(9) SCC 497, a perusal of the said judgment shows that facts
before the Apex Court were in respect of extending the zone of
consideration by increasing the ratio while holding interview and
the same was not known to the candidates who participated and
as such the said judgment is of little assistance to the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
31. So far as reliance placed on the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 1991 SC 537, the said decision is an
(16 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
authority about powers of public authorities and there has been no
concept of unfettered discretion to a public authority and the
power which is possessed by the public authority is only to be
used for public good. The said decision is to judge fairness and
reasonableness in the State actions and the same is of little
assistance to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
32. The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners on the case of Opto Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank
& Ors. reported in 2021 (6) SCC 707, the Apex Court has held
that any action taken by the authority is required to be sustained
with reference to the contents of the impugned
order/communication and the same cannot be justified by
improving the same through the contention raised in the objection
statement or affidavit filed before the Court.
33. The said principle is well settled principle by the Apex Court
way back in the year 1978 in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill
Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1) SCC
405.
34. This Court, while passing the order in the case of Dr.Delip
Singh (supra), though has not judged the validity of notification
dated 08.01.2021, as has been challenged in the present writ
petition, however, the power of the State Government to take a
conscious decision of fixing a cut-off date, keeping in mind the
relevant considerations and factors, has been approved and the
said order has also been upheld by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Dr.Neha Choudhary (supra).
(17 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022]
35. This Court finds that the Madras High Court in the case of GA
Vishwajeet Vs. UOI & Ors. [WP NO.16526/2021] &
connected writ petitions decided on 09.08.2021 has dealt with the
issue of seeking mandamus to participate in the NEET PG 2021 by
extending the cut-off date for completing one year mandatory
Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship to 31 st October, 2021
instead of 30th June, 2021. The Madras High Court has declined to
interfere by holding that cut-off dates are not fixed based on
individual claims made and the authorities are to take into
consideration a wide range of options and then take a decision.
36. This Court similarly finds that the Delhi High Court in the
case of Sh.Arman Sindhu Vs. UOI & Ors. [WP(C)
NO.8429/2021] decided on 18.08.2021 has also considered the
grievance of extending the date of completion of one year
Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship beyond 30 th
September, 2021 upto 31st October, 2021. The said challenged has
also been declined by the Delhi High Court while giving separate
reasons and further following the view taken by the Madras High
Court in the case of GA Vishwajeet (supra).
37. Accordingly, this Court does not find any force in both the
writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Solanki DS, PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
