Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. I may note that this court on 20.03.2020 when the matter came up for hearing had directed that the result of the counselling scheduled by the Medical Counselling Committee of respondent No. 7 with respect to respondent No. 1 shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition. This order was upheld by the Division Bench.

11. I have heard Mr.Samar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Anita Sahani, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 University, Mr.Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel for Government of NCT of Delhi, Mr.T. Singhdev, learned counsel for Medical Council of India and Mr.Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the newly added respondents No. 7 to 12. Learned counsel have argued the matter extensively spread over number of hours/number of days.

17. Mr. T.Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/MCI has urged as follows:-

(i) It is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 has taken two round of counselling and only two round of counselling are allowed. The petitioner is ineligible for any other round of counselling.

(ii) It is stressed that in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), para 10 clearly states that it is for the appropriate authority/state to declare the policy. It is pleaded that any authority can do so and that the authority in the present circumstances is respondent No. 1.