Delhi High Court
Garima Singh And Ors vs Hindu Rao Hospital And Anr on 8 February, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7288/2011 & C.M. No.16546/2011
Decided on: 08.02.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
GARIMA SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.D. Gupta, Adv.
versus
HINDU RAO HOSPITAL AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-2.
AND
WP(C)No.516/2012 & C.M. No.1083/2012
PANKAJ FULCHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Dinesh Malik, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Eshika Baruah, proxy counsel for
Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for R-1/MCD.
Through : Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The issues that arise for consideration in the present petitions are identical and with the consent of the parties, WP(C)No.7288/2011 is being treated as a lead matter for the purpose of deciding both the cases. W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 1 of 9
2. The petitioners herein are qualified doctors having completed their MBBS course and they are aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by respondent No.2/NBE, rejecting their applications for registration with respondent No.2/NBE for their respective specialties/courses for the January, 2011 session.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing the present petitions are that in January, 2011, respondent No.2/NBE had renewed the accreditation of respondent No.1/hospital for a period of three years from January, 2011 to December, 2013 for providing P.G. training facilities to Diplomate National Board (DNB) candidates every year in various specialities. Vide advertisement/public notice dated 5.7.2011, respondent No.1/hospital had invited online applications for DNB (Secondary) seats (post diploma course of two years) in the hospital. As per the public notice, the schedule fixed for admissions was as under:-
"On line applications facility would be available from 5th July, 2011 Last date for filling up of online form 20th July, 2011 Tentative date for Aptitude Assessment Test 25th July, 2011 List of candidates would be displayed on MCD website and Notice Board of hospital 26th July, 2011 (no separate intimation would be sent for counseling) Tentative date of counseling 27th July, 2011 Selected candidates would have to join after completing all the formalities. 28th July,2011"W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 2 of 9
4. The eligibility criteria, terms and conditions for applying, and the application procedures were also set out in the aforesaid public notice issued by respondent No.1/hospital. In terms of the said public notice, the petitioners submitted their applications for the vacancies advertised for DNB (Secondary) course much before the scheduled cutoff date, i.e., 20.7.2011. The petitioners appeared and qualified in their Aptitude Assessment Test scheduled on 25.7.2011. Thereafter, they appeared for the counselling conducted by the respondent No.1/hospital on 27.7.2011. By the end of the day, letters of selection were issued by respondent No.1/hospital to the petitioners informing them that they had been duly selected for admission against a DNB Secondary seat in their respective departments/specialties and requiring them to join their duties w.e.f. 28.7.2011. Immediately thereupon, vide letter dated 29.7.2011, respondent No.1/hospital had intimated respondent No.2/NBE about the selection of the petitioners for the January 2011 session. However, vide impugned letter dated 4.8.2011, respondent No.2/NBE had refused to consider the applications of the petitioners for registration with respondent No.1/hospital for the DNB (Secondary) course for January, 2011 session on the ground that the candidates selected had joined after the cutoff date fixed by respondent No.2/NBE, i.e., after 30.6.2011 and therefore they could not be registered W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 3 of 9 by respondent No.2/NBE for the January, 2011 session. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection letter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid letter dated 4.8.2011 issued by respondent No.2/NBE is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside for the reason that neither the petitioners, nor respondent No.1/hospital were aware of the fact that the cutoff date fixed for selection of candidates in the DNB (Secondary) course was 30.6.2011. He submits that the arbitrary action of respondent No.2/NBE of having rejected the registration of the petitioners, who had been selected for the DNB (Secondary) seats after undergoing the prescribed procedure, is liable to be quashed as the petitioners are not at fault for the purported illegality committed by respondent No.1/hospital in the process of selection. It is further submitted that the delay, if any, of 27 days in their joining duty at respondent No.1/hospital as pointed out by respondent No.2/NBE is not on account of any default on the part of the petitioners but was bonafide and occurred due to the fact that respondent No.1/hospital had fixed the last date of filling up the online form as 20.7.2011 which was much later than the cut-off date fixed by respondent no.2/NBE and the tentative date of the Aptitude Assessment Test was fixed as 25.7.2011, whereafter the tentative W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 4 of 9 date of counseling was fixed as 27.7.2011. On the very next day, i.e., on 28.07.2011, the petitioners had joined respondent No.1/Hospital.
6. Counsel for respondent No.1/hospital states that the hospital had remained under the bonafide impression that the candidates for the DNB (Secondary) course were to be selected only after the procedure for selecting candidates for the DNB (Primary) course was complete and that the petitioners may not be victimized for this error, more so, when the revised/revamped procedure for admissions to the DNB (Secondary) course had been implemented by respondent No.2/NBE for the first time in the year 2011, and there was some scope of lack of communication between the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/NBE states, on instructions from his client, that though the cutoff date for selecting candidates for the DNB (Secondary) course was fixed as 30.6.2011, there was no embargo placed by NBE on respondent No.1/hospital to have started the selection process much prior to the said date and it was erroneous on the part of respondent No.1/hospital to have waited for respondent No.2/NBE to finalize the list of candidates admitted to the DNB (Primary) course for the year 2011, which process could be completed only on 8.6.2011. He states that it is because of the aforesaid erroroneous assumption on the part of W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 5 of 9 respondent No.1/hospital that respondent No.2/NBE had to reject the applications of the petitioners as being belated. It is however not denied that ordinarily, the entire process for selection of candidates for the DNB (Secondary) course by the hospitals and the registration of the said candidates by respondent No.2/NBE is completed by 15th March of every year. However, in the year 2011, due to the implementation of the revamped procedure prescribed for admission in the DNB (Secondary) course, which procedure was revised for the first time, the candidates for the DNB (Secondary) course were permitted to be selected right upto 10.6.2011.
8. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
9. It is an undisputed position that the respondent No.1/hospital had fixed a schedule for admission of candidates to the DNB (Secondary) seats (post diploma course of two years), which commenced on 05.07.2011 and ended on 28.07.2011. The application forms were made available to the candidates on 05.07.2011. The last date for filling up of online forms was fixed as 20.07.2011 and the tentative date of counselling was slated for 27.07.2011. By 28.07.2011, the selected candidates were required to join after completing all formalities. In the present case, all the petitioners went W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 6 of 9 through the process of filling their applications, qualifying in the Aptitude Assessment Test, participating in the counselling and finally completing all requisite formalities so as to join respondent No.1/hospital by 28.07.2011. However, respondent No.2/NBE revised/revamped the procedure for admission to the DNB (Secondary) course and implemented the same for the first time in the year 2011. In terms of the revised/revamped procedure, the cut-off date for selection of candidates to the DNB (Secondary) course was fixed as 30.06.2011. On its part, respondent No.1/hospital started the process of admissions to the aforesaid course only on 05.07.2011 and the explanation offered for the delayed commencement of the procedure is that respondent No.1/Hospital remained under a bonafide impression that the said procedure could have been commenced only upon completion of the selection process initiated for accepting the candidates for DNB (Primary) course as was the normal practice followed prior to the year 2011. In other words, the aforesaid confusion/misunderstanding arose at the end of respondent No.1/hospital due to the fact that the revised/revamped procedure prescribed by respondent No.2/NBE was implemented for the first time in the year 2011 and some problems had arisen in understanding the manner of implementing the said procedure, which had not been ironed out. However, none of the petitioners can be blamed in any manner for the aforesaid error/omission on the part of respondent No.1/hospital in belatedly W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 7 of 9 fixing the schedule for admissions to the DNB (Secondary) course. In fact, the petitioners had adhered to the schedule as fixed by respondent No.1/hospital and had joined on time after completion of all formalities. In such circumstances, the rejection of the applications of the petitioners by respondent No.2/NBE would cause immense hardship to them and result in the loss of their whole academic year.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be faulted in any manner for the lack of understanding between respondent No.1/hospital and respondent No.2/NBE, nor can they be made to suffer on account of rejection of their applications as it would result in their losing an entire academic session when they are not to be blamed for the impasse between the respondents. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned letters dated 4.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 (Annexure A (colly) in WP(C)No.7288/2011 and the impugned letter dated 23.9.2011 in WP(C)No.516/2011. Respondent No.2/NBE is directed to take necessary steps to register the petitioners in their respective specialties for the January, 2011 DNB (Secondary) course session.
11. As it is stated that the petitioners are continuing to attend the DNB (Secondary) course with their respective specialities in the respondent W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 8 of 9 No.1/hospital in terms of the interim order dated 30.9.2011, passed in WP(C)No.7288/2011 and the order dated 24.1.2012 passed in WP(C)No.516/2012, it is directed that the requisite formalities of the registration of the petitioners shall be completed by the respondent No.2/NBE within a period of two weeks, under written intimation to respondents No.1/hospitals, who shall in turn intimate the same to the petitioners.
12. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 08, 2012 JUDGE
sk
W.P.(C) Nos. 7288/2011 & 516/2012 Page 9 of 9