The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the rules as laid down by the information bulletin, emphasizing the waiver of the right to challenge the counseling procedure once a candidate has participated in the process and opted for a confirmed seat.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

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.

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.

4. It is contended that the petitioners who rank from 29 to 119 are not being given the option for the said seat. Similarly it is contended that several other seats have been vacated and are not being offered to meritorious candidates and are now being offered to candidates far lower in rank.

5. The petitioners also seek to challenge clause 13.7 of the information bulletin which lays such a restriction.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that clause 13.7 of the information bulletin very clearly stipulates that candidates opting for a confirmed seat are not eligible to participate in subsequent rounds of counseling irrespective of their joining/non-joining/resignation from the seat already opted for.

7. Reliance is placed on decision of a co-ordinate bench dated 24th August, 2011 in WP(C) No. 6125 of 2011 titled Shikha Aggarwal Vs. Union of India to contend that once a candidate has participated in the selection process without demur, the candidate is estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the rules. Further reliance is placed on the said decision to contend that in case any relief were granted to the petitioner, the entire counseling would be set to naught.

8. Reliance is also placed by counsel for the respondent on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane Vs. State of U.P. (2001) 8 SCC 355 to contend that if candidates who had taken part in the first counseling were given a chance in subsequent counseling, it would start a chain reaction and the process of counseling would be endless and it would not be possible to commence and complete the academic course.

9. Clause 13.7 of the information bulletin reads as under :-

“Candidates opting for a confirmed seat are NOT eligible to participate in subsequent rounds of counseling irrespective of their joining/non-joining/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 co