Full Judgment Text
2023:DHC:5330
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17332/2022 and CM APPL. 2322/2023
Date of Decision: 27.07.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
DR. RENUKA BULANI PRASAD,
W/O SH. ANAND PRASAD,
D/O SH. KANHIYALAL BULANI,
R/O A-201, SECOND FLOOR,
SAGAR SADAN APARTMENT,
PLOT NO.113, LP EXTENSION,
PATPARGANJ, EAST DELHI-110092 ..... PETITIONER
Through: Ms.Aditi Gupta, Advocate,
(DHCLSC) with petitioner in person.
Versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
(NBEMS)
THROUGH NOMINATED COUNSEL,
DABRI- GURGAON ROAD, NEAR DWARKA DISTRICT COURT,
SECTOR-9 ROAD, PSP AREA,
NEW DELHI-110075 ..........RESPONDENT NO.1
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS ,
THROUGH NOMINATED COUNSEL,
MEDICAL ENCLAVE,
ANSARI NAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI- 110029 ..........RESPONDENT NO.2
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, ยท
THROUGH NOMINATED COUNSEL,
MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI- 110029 ..........RESPONDENT NO.3
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
2
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS,
THROUGH NOMINATED COUNSEL,
MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI- 110029 ..........RESPONDENT NO.4
UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVT. OF INDIA,
ROOM NO. 348; 'A' WING,
NIRMAN BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI- 110011 ..........RESPONDENT NO.5
Through: Mr.Sri Harsha Peechara,
Ms.Harshita Gupta and Mr.Shubham
Kumar Mishra, Advocates for R-1 to
4.
Ms.Monika Arora, CGSC and
Mr.Yash Tyagi, Advocates for R-
5/UOI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
3
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
th
states that the petitioner obtained 90 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
1
of Dr. Deepika Veerwal v. National Board of Examination and Anr. and
2
Dr. Shidore Shital Mhatardeo v. National Board of Examination (NBE) .
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) by way of
1
W.P.(C) 5543.2020
2
W.P.(C) 7255/2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
4
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 Handbook. He
further submits that the public notice and the Handbook on the official
website provide all the necessary information and any communication apart
from this is to be treated as additional information, which cannot be made the
basis to raise a complaint by any candidate. Precisely, his stand is that in the
instant case, the candidate herself is responsible for not adhering to the
schedule uploaded on the official website. He, therefore, states that no
interference is called for.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
5
record.
7. For the sake of clarity, the relevant clauses of the Handbook are
reproduced hereunder. Clause 2.4 of the Handbook reads as under:-
"To appear in DNB (Post Diploma), 2022 Admission Session counseling,
the candidates have to register with NBEMS through the designated
website (http://counseling.nbe.edu.in/) and also have to fill the choice of
preferences during the registration process. A candidate who has not
registered with NBEMS shall not be eligible to participate in the
counseling process at all."
8. Clause 4.1 of the Handbook reads as under:-
"4.1 The schedule of DNB (Post Diploma) centralized merit-based
counseling is available on NBEMS website https://natboard.edu.in/ and
http:l/counselinq.nbe.edu.in/"
9. A combined reading of both the clauses makes it clear that the
candidates who are desirous of appearing in the counselling process for
admission to the DNB (Post Diploma) course, have to register with NBEMS
through the designated website. It is also stipulated therein that the
candidates will have to fill the choice of preference during the registration
process. Clause 2.4 further makes it clear that a candidate who has not
registered with NBEMS, shall not be eligible to participate in the counselling
process at all.
10. The public notice dated 22.09.2022 is uploaded on the official website.
The same unequivocally states that the registration for counselling will have
to take place between 30.09.2022 to 05.10.2022. Admittedly, the petitioner
failed to keep track of the information uploaded on the official website
periodically, which was incumbent upon her to do, as per the instructions of
the Handbook. Since the petitioner failed to register herself between
30.09.2022 to 05.10.2022, she was not allowed to sit for the counselling.
Further, clause 6.4 of the Handbook specifically lays down that only those
candidates who have not been allotted any seat during the first three rounds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
6
of counselling will be eligible for the final (mop-up) round, thus excluding
the petitioner from the subsequent round of counselling, which is also not
arbitrary or illegal.
11. The petitioner had a duty to follow the instructions easily available to
all the candidates on the official website of the respondent(s) and in absence
of the same, cannot be allowed to raise any grievance, at this stage, merely
on the ground that the petitioner belatedly made a telephone call and
communications, which, either were responded vaguely by the respondents
or not responded to at all.
12. When the instructions contained in the Handbook were clear and the
same were made applicable to all the candidates uniformly, there cannot be
any additional expectation from the examining body to cater to a particular
individual more than the others. If the examining body resorts to furnish or
intimate the candidate by additional information, that is a discretionary act
on the part of the examining body, which is to be treated as an additional
facility that the examining body is not duty-bound to provide.
13. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Dr. Deepika Veerwal (supra) is concerned, the same
would not be of any assistance to the petitioner as the factual matrix as well
as the issue involved in both the cases is altogether different. The case of Dr.
Deepika Veerwal (supra) dealt with the non-production of original
documents during the counselling process, a stage that the petitioner herein
has not reached due to her inability to register for the counselling process
itself.
14. The case of Dr.Shidore Shital Mhatardeo (supra) , also relied upon by
the petitioner, dealt with the allotment of seat in the final round of
counselling. Paragraph no. 63 of the said decision states that:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
7
"In the age of technology, where internet, facsimile, and telephones are
available, it amazes me as to how the right of a candidate to seek
admission is denied by simply refusing to verify something which is only an
e-mail, fax or a phone call away."
15. In the instant case, it is not the stand of the petitioner that she had
registered online within the stipulated time period provided in the public
notice dated 22.09.2022 and despite registration, her candidature is
erroneously not being considered. In the instant case, the petitioner has
completely missed the relevant date for her registration. It is for this reason,
the decision in the case of Dr.Shidore Shital Mhatardeo (supra) will also
have no relevance under the facts of the present case.
16. Keeping the aforesaid observations in mind, this court is not inclined
to entertain the instant writ petition or to grant any relief in favour of the
petitioner, as prayed for.
17. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed along with pending
application.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 27, 2023/MJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV