This writ petition challenged the refusal to register a medical student in the DNB Radiology course due to late enrollment. The court held that joining beyond the cut-off date without due cause is unjustifiable, rejecting the swine flu excuse as insufficient, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp2092.10
1
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2092 OF 2010
Dr.Sardar Tabish s/o Mukhtar ) Age-28 years, Occupation : Medical Student ) Residing at 605, A2, Sarkar Residency ) Dr.Mascarenhas Road, Mazgaon, ) Bombay-400 010 )....Petitioner
V/s.
1 The Union of India ) through the Secretary to the Government ) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ) Government of India, New Delhi ) 2 The National Board of Examinations ) Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ring Road, ) Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110 029 ) 3 The Lokmanya Medical Foundation ) Chinchwad, Nigdi, Pune, through its ) Medical Director )....Respondents
Mr.Hemant Surve along with Mr. A.J.Kandharkar for the petitioner.
Mr.Girish Kulkarni along with Mr.Sandeep Waghmare for the respondent no.3.
Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj for Union of India.
CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.
DATE : 7th MAY 2012.
wp2092.10
2
JUDGMENT :- (PER ; MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)
and 22.2.2010 sent by the respondent no.2-National Board of Examinations refusing the registration of the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for the admission in Diplomat National Course (DNB) in Radiology.
The first advertisement for the course which was to commence from August-2009, was given on 14.6.2009. There was no response to the said advertisement due to spread of swine flue in Pune. For National Board Examination, the last date to enroll for the seat was 14.8.2009. The 2nd advertisement for the said vacant post was given by respondent no.3 on 22.8.2009. Thus the advertisement was given after the due date of the enrollment. Pursuant to said advertisement the petitioner filled up the form. Though cut-off date was 17.8.2009, he joined DNB course on 10.9.2009. Thus, there was a delay of 23 days. Respondent no.2 objected the same and refused the registration of the petitioner for the course. Petitioner challenged the said communication in petition and this Court ordered status-quo as of that date i.e 22.3.2010, to be maintained. It continued till today.
2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was
not a fault of the petitioner for which he has to lose his entire career.
3 wp2092.10
After the advertisement, the petitioner had responded promptly and was admitted for the course. He was not informed that his admission was provisional therefore, the decision of refusal of registration is unjust.
3 Respondent no.3 is the institution who gave advertisement and admitted the students for DNB course. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 admitted that the advertisement was issued after the due date of the enrollment mentioned by respondent no.2. He clarified that all admissions for DNB course are provisional till they are approved and registered by National Board of Examinations. He submitted that after the first advertisement due to swine flue, there was no response from the candidates, therefore, after the first advertisement, respondent no.3 had to give 2nd advertisement to fill up the vacant post. The application of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent no.3 with request for registration of the petitioner, which could have been considered by the respondent no.2.
4 Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 categorically stated that there was a public notice issued by National Board of Examinations on 2.4.2009 wherein last date of the enrollment for DNB seat was mentioned as 14.8.2009. He drew our attention to the guidelines laid down by the National Board of Examinations in
wp2092.10
4
respect of the admissions and the enrollment.
5 Perusal of public notice dated 2.4.2009 reveals a time bound programme given by the National Board of Examinations. There is a reference of prescribed guidelines. In clause no.6, 14th August 2009 is mentioned as last date of enrollment. Clauses-14 & 17 specifically state that mere joining the institution or medical colleges is not sufficient but the grant of registration number by National Board of Examinations is a condition precedent for the valid registration to the DNB programme. Thus the decision to refuse the registration cannot be said beyond the direction or guidelines set by the National Board of Examinations especially in the light of specific declaration of the last date of enrollment.
6 We are not persuaded by the submission of the petitioner that he cannot be victimized for his no fault. In the affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 it is mentioned that they did not charge any fees for the course therefore, the petitioner could not have been treated as a student admitted to the course. However by this the respondent no.3 cannot be absolved from his wrong of admitting student beyond cut of date. The reason of spread of swine flue at the relevant time for the late issuance of the 2nd advertisement is a lame excuse and cannot justify the delay especially when the respondent no.3 is a
wp2092.10
5
responsible institution who is supposed to be fully aware of the directions/guidelines of the admission/registration process laid down by the respondent no.2. A possibility of mutual adjustment between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 cannot be overruled. Thus refusal of the registration cannot be said as mere procedural wrangle but it is a strict time frame programme affecting the eligibility criteria of DNB trainee.
7 Lastly, the petitioner tried to impress on us that pursuant to the order of status-quo, he has completed the entire course. He has received stipend of Rs.11,000/- from the respondent no.3 from time to time and the Managing Trustee of the respondent no.3 issued a certificate in his name stating that he had completed the mandatory two years of training on 8.9.2011. This fact is controverted in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3 in paragraph-g wherein it was confirmed that after communication dated 22.2.2010 of respondent no.2, the petitioner was not pursuing his course with the respondent. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)
(S.A.BOBDE,J)
6 wp2092.10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be compelled to be registered for DNB Radiology course after joining beyond the stipulated cut-off date.
Whether the delay in advertisement issuance due to swine flu justifies admission beyond the prescribed enrollment deadline.
Whether the petitioner completed the entire course despite the statutory refusal of registration.
Dr. Sardar Tabish
The Union of India
The National Board of Examinations
The Lokmanya Medical Foundation
S.A. Bobde
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
