Delhi High Court - Orders
Reshma Shaliga S vs Director General Of Health Services And ... on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~213 & 214
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14661/2022
RESHMA SHALIGA S ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam Seth and Mr. Yash
Pratap Singh, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Ramanpreet
Kaur, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty,
Ms. Michelle B. Das and Mr. Bhanu
Gulati, Advocates for R-3.
Mr. Vinish Phoghat, SPC for R-1 &
2.
+ W.P.(C) 14662/2022
DR. SANTOSH NARAYAN R ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anupam Seth and Mr. Yash
Pratap Singh, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICE AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, SPC with Mr. M.
Theepa, GP for R-1 & 2.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Ramanpreet
Kaur, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty,
Ms. Michelle B. Das and Mr. Bhanu
Gulati, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.10.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:21.10.2022 17:41:25
1. Petitioners, who appeared in NEET (PG) 2022 examination held on 21st May 2022, after declaration of results, seek directions to Respondents to change category of Petitioners from 'General' to 'OBC' for the afore-said examination and permission to participate in counselling process on such basis. Considering the identical reliefs sought and commonality in grounds of challenge, a common order is being passed.
2. In W.P. (C) 14661/2022, Petitioner belongs to 'Labbai' community which is recognized as 'Backward Class'/'BC' by State of Tamil Nadu. It is stated that in the application form for said examination, there was no option of category of 'BC' and due to lack of clarity, inadvertently 'General' category instead of 'OBC' was selected.
3. Basis the above, an admit card was issued to her, and she appeared in said examination and scored 265 marks which is above cut-off of 245 marks for 'OBC' category. Petitioner realized that her category was wrongly stated as 'General' instead of 'OBC', and made a representation on 10th June, 2022 for rectification of category. Subsequently, after the cut off date, she obtained an OBC-NCL certificate from Tehsildar Office, Taluk Agasteeswaram, Dist. Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu on 9th September 2022 and thereafter, on 15th September, 2022, sent a representation to Respondents reiterating the request for change of category, along with the said certificate.
4. As regards W.P.(C) 14662/2022, facts are identical with the difference being that Petitioner herein belongs to 'Vadugar' community Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:21.10.2022 17:41:25 which is also recognised as 'Backward Class'/'BC' by State of Tamil Nadu. He made a representation on 9th September 2022, having obtained an OBC- NCL certificate from Tehsildar Office, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu on 30th July 2022 which was furnished to the Respondents on 15th September, 2022.
5. On receiving no response to their representations, Petitioners sent a legal notice on 24th September 2022, to Respondents No. 1 and 2 [Director General of Health Services and Medical Counselling Committee ["MCC"] to which MCC responded shifting the responsibility on Respondent No. 4- National Board of Examinations in Medical Science ["NBE"]. In such circumstances Petitioners have approached this Court.
6. Counsel for Petitioners states that Petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 and 15 have been violated, in as much as despite being bright and meritorious, they are being precluded from participating in counselling under desired category. The online application form for said examination lacked clarity and hence, inadvertent error occurred on part of Petitioners. Further, no prejudice would be caused in case category is changed from 'General' to 'OBC' even at this stage. It is further contended that one's career should not be allowed to suffer due to a minor technicality on account of an unintentional error. Counsel for Petitioners also urged for a direction to Respondent No. 4-NBE to consider Petitioner's representations.
7. Per contra, counsel for Respondents state that identical relief has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:21.10.2022 17:41:25 been rejected in W.P.(C) 13210/20221 decided vide order dated 14th September, 2022. The review petition impugning the judgment has also been rejected vide order dated 22nd September, 2022.
8. Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent No. 3-National Medical Commission, points out that the second round of counselling for said examination is over and at this belated stage, Court intervention would lead to upsetting the schedule for counselling.
9. A perusal of aforenoted orders indicates that relief sought herein is identical to the decided cases. The factual circumstances and grounds stated, inter alia, lack of clarity at the time of applying for said examination and no prejudice to be caused to anyone, are no different and have been dealt with extensively. Therefore, it is observed that reasoning in aforenoted orders shall also apply to present petitions. Additionally, since the counselling is at an advanced stage, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions. Given that the primary relief sought has been considered and denied, the Court finds no merit in prayer of Petitioner seeking a direction to Respondents to process and consider their representations.
10. In light of foregoing, present petitions are accordingly dismissed, along with pending application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 17, 2022/nk 1 Pallem Vennela v. Union of India and Ors. and other connected matters.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:21.10.2022 17:41:25