Allowed

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/2914/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the registration of petitioner for DNB Ophthalmology. The High Court directed the Central Board of Examiners to register the petitioner upon completion of requirements, noting no irregularity in her admission unlike another case. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed Second Respondent to register Petitioner as Postgraduate student for DNB Course in Ophthalmology and permit appearance for examination if requirements met.

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag Vs Union of India, through… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

VBC 1/4 wp2914.12-24.9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2914 OF 2012

¶4

Dr.Tanwangee Y. Joag. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr.V.M.Thorat for the Petitioner. Ms.Anamika Malhotra for Respondent No.1. Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶9

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶12

The Petitioner passed her M.B.B.S. Degree Course from the Krishna Institute of Medical Science, Karad in 2008 and completed her internship in 2009. The Petitioner then appeared for the CET conducted by the National Board of Examination, the Second Respondent, in or around December 2009. The Third Respondent, Vivekanand Netralaya Lions N.A.B. Eye Hospital, issued an advertisement inviting applications for four Postgraduate DNB seats in the discipline of Ophthalmology. The Petitioner applied to the Third Respondent. At the relevant time, candidates such as the Petitioner, were required to appear for an aptitude test before the Institution to which admission was sought under the Rules framed by the Second

¶13

VBC 2/4 wp2914.12-24.9

¶14

Respondent. The Petitioner appeared for an aptitude test before the Third Respondent on 18 January 2010 and was placed at Sr.No.1 in the waiting list. In the first round of admission, two candidates were selected, namely, Dr.Ameya Anil Kulkarni and Dr.Pooja Navale, who were at Sr.Nos.1 and 2 of the merit list. In February 2010, the Petitioner was informed by the management of the Third Respondent of a vacancy having arisen on account of the resignation of Dr.Pooja Navale. The Petitioner accepted the vacant seat and joined the DNB Course in Ophthalmology on 12 February 2010. The grievance of the Petitioner is that she was not allowed to be registered for the DNB course by the Second Respondent. Accordingly, these proceedings have been instituted seeking a direction to the Second Respondent to register the Petitioner as a Postgraduate student for the DNB Course in Ophthalmology and to allow the Petitioner to appear at the annual examination in December 2012.

¶15

A notice was issued in these proceedings on 10 April 2012. The Petition has been adjourned thereafter, on 28 June 2012, 4 September 2012 and 11 September 2012. No reply has been filed by the Second Respondent. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Respondent states that the reply which was filed in an earlier Writ Petition, Writ Petition (L) 2144 of 2011, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the Petition, is adopted in response to these proceedings.

¶16

In defence to the Petition, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Respondent has adverted to paragraph 86 of the reply filed in Writ

¶17

VBC 3/4 wp2914.12-24.9

¶18

Petition (L) 2144 of 2011 in which it has been stated that the admission which was granted to Dr.Ameya Anil Kulkarni was found to be contrary to the Rules. The Second Respondent has stated that it was found that the father of Dr.Ameya Kulkarni was (i) running a personal Eye Hospital as a full time professional; (ii) working as a full time Professor for DNB students with the Third Respondent; and (iii) working as a full time Professor and Head of the Department at Bhartiya Vidyapeeth, Sangli. In other words, it was submitted that the father of Dr.Ameya Kulkarni was working full time in three different positions and, therefore, accreditation of the Third Respondent was liable to be withdrawn.

¶19

Before this Court, there is no allegation whatsoever in regard to the admission which was granted to the Petitioner for the DNB Course. In the reply, it has been stated that proceedings were initiated by Dr.Ameya Kulkarni before the Delhi High Court. However, there is absolutely no allegation in regard to the eligibility of the Petitioner or in regard to the manner in which admission was granted to her. The accreditation of the Third Respondent has not been withdrawn. At the relevant time, when the Petitioner was admitted, the applicable Rules which were framed by the Second Respondent contemplated holding of an aptitude test by the Institute concerned. Counsel states that subsequently the provision for an aptitude test has been done away with in view of the fact that it was noticed that such aptitude tests were being utilised by the Institution for extraneous purposes. Be that as it may, during the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Respondent stated that since the Petitioner has now completed her entire course of studies for DNB in Ophthalmology, the Second

¶20

VBC 4/4 wp2914.12-24.9

¶21

Respondent, without creating precedent in other cases, would submit to the order of the Court. As we have noted earlier, there is no allegation in regard to the admission which was granted to the Petitioner and the entire controversy revolves around the admission which was granted to Dr.Ameya Kulkarni whose Petition, the Court is informed by the Second Respondent, has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Delhi High Court. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, she has pursued the DNB Course in Ophthalmology. There is nothing on the record before the Court to show that the admission granted to the Petitioner was contrary to the Rules. Fairly, no such submission has been urged at the hearing. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition by directing the Second Respondent to register the Petitioner as a Postgraduate student for the DNB Course in Ophthalmology and if the Petitioner has fulfilled all the educational requirements, to take necessary steps for permitting her to appear for the examination and to complete the academic requirements. We pass these directions having regard to the specific facts of the present case since absolutely no irregularity is found in the admission of the Petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansi Sunil Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Shri Krishna B.Narkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ram Aasre Ramjas Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bharati Dyandeo Mali Vs the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Nagendra Krishna Jadhav Vs University Grants Commission, through Secretary and Ors.

Bharati Dyandeo Mali Vs the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.