IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Dr. Renuka Bulani Prasad – Appellant
Versus
National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences (Nbems) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 17332 of 2022 and CM Appl. 2322 of 2023
Decided On : 27-07-2023
Counselling - Admission Process - DNB (Post Diploma) - [Article 226, Constitution of India] - [Clause 2.4, Clause 4.1] - The court dismissed the petition seeking directions for mop-up rounds of counselling and initiation of registration and counseling process for obtaining Post Graduate Diploma qualification. The petitioner failed to register within the scheduled dates as per the Handbook and public notice, leading to exclusion from the counselling process. The court held that the examining body is not duty-bound to provide additional information beyond the instructions in the Handbook and official website. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were found to be irrelevant to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions for mop-up rounds of counselling and initiation of registration and counseling process for obtaining Post Graduate Diploma qualification. The petitioner failed to register within the scheduled dates and was excluded from the counselling process.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to adhere to the instructions in the Handbook and official website, and the examining body is not obligated to provide additional information beyond the published schedule. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were found to be irrelevant to the present case.
Issues: Failure to register within scheduled dates, obligation of examining body to provide additional information, relevance of decisions relied upon by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to register within the scheduled dates as per the Handbook and public notice led to exclusion from the counselling process. The examining body is not duty-bound to provide additional information beyond the instructions in the Handbook and official website. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were found to be irrelevant to the present case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and the pending application.
ORDER
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for directions to the respondents to start the mop- up rounds of counselling and initiate the registration and counseling process for obtaining Post Graduate Diploma qualification for all meritorious candidates including the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for directions to initiate an administrative and departmental inquiry against the erring officials of the respondents for their negligence in carrying out their public duties and responsibilities towards the meritorious candidates. In addition, the petitioner has prayed for compensation for the mental harassment suffered and the litigation expenses incurred.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Diplomate of National Board- Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test (DNB PDCET) Exam, 2022 which was conducted on 24.07.2022 for admission in P.G. Course in Anaesthesiology Branch. She states that the petitioner obtained 90th rank and according to her merit position, she was entitled for allotment of the desired seat in the said course. It is also submitted that after declaration of the result on 24.08.2022, the respondent(s) failed to properly intimate the concerned candidate about the timeline to be followed for her registration in the counselling process. Accordingly, the petitioner could not register herself between the duly scheduled dates from 30.09.2022 to 05.10.2022. Resultantly, she was unable to take part in the counselling process.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the petitioner making a telephonic call to the respondent(s) before the commencement of the registration process and filing an application asking for the dates of registration of the counselling process, the respondent(s), instead of furnishing the correct information, misled the petitioner to the extent of intimating that as and when the dates for the commencement of registration would be notified, the same would be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, presumed that as and when the dates would be notified for registration, the petitioner would be duly intimated and accordingly, she would register herself for allotment of the seat. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on two decisions of this court, in the cases of Dr. Deepika Veerwal v. National Board of Examination and Anr., W.P.(C) 5543.2020 and Dr. Shidore Shital Mhatardeo v. National Board of Examination (NBE), W.P.(C) 7255/2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) by way of filing a counter-affidavit has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner. At the outset, he submits that before the examination is conducted, an Information Bulletin in the form of a Handbook is duly published for the information of all the concerned candidates. The same is also uploaded on the official website. He submits that the Handbook, which was published as early as 22.04.2022, contained all the necessary information and directions required by the candidates for the admission process.
5. While taking this court through various clauses of the Handbook, learned counsel for the respondent(s) states that as per clause 2.4, the candidates have to register on the website of the National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences (NBEMS). He also states that if clause 4.1 of the Handbook is perused, the same indicates that the schedule of DNB (Post Diploma) Centralised Merit Based counselling would be available on the NBEMS website. In addition to this, he states that for the Academic Year 2022, a public notice was uploaded on 22.09.2022 on the official website, wherein, the dates for registration of counselling were specifically informed to be from 30.09.2022 to 05.10.2022. He, therefore, states that there has been sufficient compliance of the instructions contained in the Han
AI
The examining body is not duty-bound to provide additional information beyond the instructions in the Handbook and official website.
Adherence to the specified timeline for registration and admission process is crucial, and failure to register within the specified period cannot be excused.
The court has the discretion to issue a writ of mandamus based on the peculiar facts of a case, directing an authority to take specific actions as an exception.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.