Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Jitender Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 March, 2022
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~280
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13782/2021
DR. JITENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kritiman Singh, CGSC with Ms.
Sirupa Nag and Ms. Kunjala
Bhardwaj, Advs. for R-2
Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Sr.
Standing Counsel with Ms. Samiksha,
Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 21.03.2022 CM APPL. 13561/2022-Dir. Filed by petitioner
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to permit him to appear in the forthcoming DNB (Orthopaedics) Final practical examination.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared in the theory examination in March 2021, wherein he was awarded only 189 marks, even though he was entitled to three more marks. It is petitioner's case that he was entitled to be granted five marks for the incorrect question in paper II but was instead granted only two marks for the same and has not therefore been able to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:22.03.2022 13:13:01 secure 192 marks, which would have made him eligible to appear in the DNB (Orthopaedics) Final practical examination; this aspect has been noted in the order dated 06.12.2021, passed by the predecessor Bench.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Kiritman accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.2 and vehemently opposes the application by submitting that in case the petitioner succeeds before this Court, he will be entitled to appear in the next round of practical examinations conducted by the respondent no.2/Board, which is likely to be held after six months.
4. In my view, once the respondents have not been able to give justifiable reason as to why the Petitioner was awarded only two marks in respect of the erroneous question instead of five marks, earmarked for the said question, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner as, in case, he succeeds in the writ petition, he would be compelled to wait for another six months before being permitted to appear in the said examination. Grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case he is not permitted to appear in the forthcoming practical exams alongwith other eligible students
5. The application is, therefore, allowed by directing the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to submit his application and appear in the forthcoming DNB (Orthopaedics) Final practical examination along with other candidates; the application would be submitted on or before 31.03.2022 as per the notice issued by the respondents on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:22.03.2022 13:13:01 01.03.2022. However, the result of the petitioner in the practical examination will not be declared without the leave of this Court and instead will be kept in a sealed cover, to be opened only if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition.
CM APPL. 4657/2022 (filed by respondent no.2 seeking appropriate directions for modification of order dated 06.12.2021)
6. This is an application filed by the respondent no.2 seeking modification of an order dated 06.12.2021, passed by HMJ Prateek Jalan.
7. In my view, this application ought to be considered by the same bench which had passed the said order.
8. List the application before the bench of HMJ Prateek Jalan on 01.04.2022, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
REKHA PALLI, J MARCH 21, 2022 ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:22.03.2022 13:13:01