The importance of equal treatment and the right to fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, and the possibility of granting relief to meritorious candidates who have suffered injustice due to no fault of their own in exceptional cases.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The stream of allopathic medical education in Bharat at the level of post graduate courses is broadly academic or experience oriented. Diplomate of National Board (DNB) at the post graduate level lays more emphasis on experience, therefore, the allocation of selected candidates is preferred in the hospitals and now in the medical colleges as well. The experience oriented course recognised as DNB PG Diploma course is treated at par with PG medical courses recognised by Medical Commission of India Mid session admissions to the medical courses, whether graduate or post-graduate, are impermissible in view of the judgment cited before us reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 (Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and others).

3. To buttress the submission put forth on behalf of the opposite parties, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the apex court in the case of Dr Astha Goel and others vs. Medical Counselling Committee and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 734, it was submitted that admission would not be permissible after the session has already begun.

4. The controversy before us, however, has fallen for consideration under peculiar circumstances. It is worthy to note that the petitioners, for the relief sought herein, have approached this Court promptly and without leaving any scope for the objection of delay.

5. The brief facts for appreciating the controversy may be set out as under.

6. The petitioners participated in NEET-2021-22 (PG) while being members of State Medical Services, U.P. All of them have qualified in NEET-21 (PG) whereafter they were to appear in counselling in order to be allotted respective hospitals or State medical colleges. All the petitioners have opted for DNB PG Course, the allotment whereof was based on counselling to be held by U.P Medical Education department as per schedule.

7. In the counter affidavit placed on record, the scheduled date of counselling started from the month of January and ended on 28.4.2022. The first round of counselling was held in January, 2022; round two was held in February, 2022 and mop-up round was held on 28.4.2022 insofar as State quota seats of which the figure corresponds to 44 and 25 in the respective courses of DNB Diploma and Primary DNB respectively are concerned.

8. The petitioners who had duly participated in the mop-up round of counselling on 28.4.2022, despite having presented themselves for allotment of State medical colleges, were not allotted the same for want of a NOC being issued by the department of Medical Health. It is for this reason that the colleges were not allotted to the petitioners hence they could not report to the colleges for admission and deposit of fee to pursue their course.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the petitioners had duly qualified NEET-2021(PG) and had participated in the mop-up round of counselling held on 28.4.2022, there was no reason for the department of Medical Education and Training to have withheld the allotment of respective medical colleges merely on account of non-issuance of NOC by the department of Medical Health, U.P.

10. The allotment of colleges being within the sole prerogative of the department of Medical Education, who, according to the petitioners, was vested with such a power ought not to have kept the candidature of the petitioners hanged over on that account particularly when the other candidates similarly situated were allotted the courses based on the same selection result of NEET-21 (PG)..

11. The petitioners who were not communicated any reason except orally that the colleges cannot be allotted unless NOC is granted by the department of Medical Health, approached this Court at the earliest objecting to the discriminatory treatment which they were meted with. The petitioners have prayed for the relief as under:

“(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing th