Adherence to prescribed schedules and procedures, lack of fault on the part of applicants, and potential academic loss influenced the court's decision.

HIMA KOHLI, ORAL

1. The issues that arise for consideration in the present petitions are identical and with the consent of the parties, WP(C)No.7288/2011 is being treated as a lead matter for the purpose of deciding both the cases.

2. The petitioners herein are qualified doctors having completed their MBBS course and they are aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by respondent No.2/NBE, rejecting their applications for registration with respondent No.2/NBE for their respective specialties/courses for the January, 2011 session.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing the present petitions are that in January, 2011, respondent No.2/NBE had renewed the accreditation of respondent No.1/hospital for a period of three years from January, 2011 to December, 2013 for providing P.G. training facilities to Diplomate National Board (DNB) candidates every year in various specialities. Vide advertisement/public notice dated 5.7.2011, respondent No.1/hospital had invited online applications for DNB (Secondary) seats (post diploma course of two years) in the hospital. As per the public notice, the schedule fixed for admissions was as under:-

“On line applications facility would be available from 5th July, 2011 Last date for filling up of online form 20th July, 2011 Tentative date for Aptitude Assessment Test 25th July, 2011 List of candidates would be displayed on MCD website and Notice Board of hospital 26th July, 2011 (no separate intimation would be sent for counseling) Tentative date of counseling 27th July, 2011 Selected candidates would have to join after completing all the formalities. 28th July,2011”

4. The eligibility criteria, terms and conditions for applying, and the application procedures were also set out in the aforesaid public notice issued by respondent No.1/hospital. In terms of the said public notice, the petitioners submitted their applications for the vacancies advertised for DNB (Secondary) course much before the scheduled cutoff date, i.e., 20.7.2011. The petitioners appeared and qualified in their Aptitude Assessment Test scheduled on 25.7.2011. Thereafter, they appeared for the counselling conducted by the respondent No.1/hospital on 27.7.2011. By the end of the day, letters of selection were issued by respondent No.1/hospital to the petitioners informing them that they had been duly selected for admission against a DNB Secondary seat in their respective departments/specialties and requiring them to join their duties w.e.f. 28.7.2011. Immediately thereupon, vide letter dated 29.7.2011, respondent No.1/hospital had intimated respondent No.2/NBE about the selection of the petitioners for the January 2011 session. However, vide impugned letter dated 4.8.2011, respondent No.2/NBE had refused to consider the applications of the petitioners for registration with respondent No.1/hospital for the DNB (Secondary) course for January, 2011 session on the ground that the candidates selected had joined after the cutoff date fixed by respondent No.2/NBE, i.e., after 30.6.2011 and therefore they could not be registered by respondent No.2/NBE for the January, 2011 session. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection letter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid letter dated 4.8.2011 issued by respondent No.2/NBE is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside for the reason that neither the petitioners, nor respondent No.1/hospital were aware of the fact that the cutoff date fixed for selection of candidates in the DNB (Secondary) course was 30.6.2011. He submits that the arbitrary action of respondent No.2/NBE of having rejected the registration of the petitioners, who had been selected for the DNB (Secondary) seats after undergoing the prescribed procedure, is liable to be quashed as the petitioners are not at fault for the purported illegality committed by respondent No.1/hospital in the process of selection. It is further submitted t