JUDGMENT :

[Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.]

1. The petitioner in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is seeking directions for allotment of Super Specialty seat in 'Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery' at AIIMS New Delhi as per the result dated 11.01.2023 of the second round of online seat allocation by respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS. The petitioner also seeks for the quashment of Corrigendum No.02/2023 dated 20.01.2023, issued by respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS, whereby her allotment of seat has been cancelled.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a resident doctor at AIIMS, Rishikesh. She appeared for the Institute of National Importance Super Specialty Entrance Examination (INI-SS) for admission to the Master of Chirurgiae (M.Ch.) course, January, 2023 Session, in subject 'Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery'. Her preferred choice was AIIMS at New Delhi in the concerned course. She secured rank 5 in the concerned course in AIIMS Merit List vide notification No. 197/2022 dated 01.12.2022. According to her, in the Second Online Seat Allocation result dated 11.01.2023; she was allocated a seat in the concerned course. As per the result, she was supposed to report to the allotted institution i.e., AIIMS, New Delhi, between 12.01.2023 to 17.01.2023. She states that she tried to accept the allocated seat from her registered online portal on 12.01.2023, however, the formalities were not allowed to be completed and the online portal reflected that no seat was allotted to the petitioner in the second round. The petitioner thereafter, immediately approached the respondent-authorities and she was told that there was some technical glitch and the same would be resolved immediately. According to her, between 12.01.2023 to 17.01.2023, she approached the respondent-authorities through e-mail and physical interaction also to resolve the issue but she received no written communication from respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS. On 17.01.2023, she contacted the respondent-authorities at New Delhi. On 18.01.2023, the petitioner received an acknowledgement that her request had been forwarded to the Dean. According to her, on 20.01.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS issued a corrigendum that the seat allotted to the petitioner in the second round has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire action by respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS is illegal and improper and once the seat is allocated to the petitioner, the requisite formalities should have been allowed to be completed and the petitioner cannot be denied the admission to the allocated seat.

4. This matter was taken up for hearing on 25.01.2023, and this court directed the respondents to seek instructions and to file the reply. The matter was taken up for hearing on 01.02.2023, and during the course of hearing, it was noted that after cancelling the seat of the petitioner, the same was allotted to Dr. Anjali M. Chandola and therefore, this court allowed the petitioner to implead Dr. Anjali M. Chandola as respondent No.6 in the petition. The notice was directed to be issued to Dr. Anjali M. Chandola and in the meantime, it was directed that the petitioner should appear before the competent authority of respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS to explore the possibility of allotment of any other seat, if one is available. The matter was thereafter taken up for hearing on 06.02.2023, on which date, the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS were recorded that the application of the petitioner was under active consideration at the highest level. On 09.02.2023, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4-AIIMS pointed out that the request of the petitioner was rejected as there was no seat available and learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to place on record