Petitioners challenged their ineligibility for second-round counseling after securing seats in the first round. The court upheld the information bulletin rule preventing re-participation, citing established precedents that such rules are rational to ensure the counseling process concludes within the academic session.
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.
$~33
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Judgment delivered on: 17.10.2016
PRIYANKA CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Bina Madhavan and Mr. Prateek Dhir, Advs. For the Respondents Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT 17.10.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 1 of 9
candidates, who had taken admission opted out and accordingly the seats opted by those candidates fell vacant and are now included in the second round of counseling which would commence from 21st October, 2016.
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 2 of 9
counseling irrespective of their joining/non-joining/resignation from the seat already opted for.
“Candidates opting for a confirmed seat are NOT eligible to participate in subsequent round(s) of counseling irrespective of their joining/nonjoining/resignation from the seat already opted for.”
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 3 of 9
had the option not to appear in the first round of counseling and could have chosen to wait for the subsequent rounds. However, once the candidate has exercised the option to participate in counseling and has opted for a confirmed seat, as per the information bulletin, the candidate is not eligible for participation in subsequent rounds of counseling.
“6. The cause of heartburn of the petitioner is that the first round of counseling is held for the top in the merit list to pick the stream and college/institute/hospital of his choice and the second round is held for the next in the merit list alongwith the opportunity to the ones who have already participated in the first round to change their stream in case some seats fall vacant, but the respondent board does not envisage the participation of the students who have already participated in the first round to again participate in the second round and thus robs the candidate the opportunity to take up another stream which could be available in the second round and was
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 4 of 9
not available at the first. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the premier Institute such as AIIMS and others give provisional admissions in the first round leaving the window of opportunity open for them to change their choice in the second round and thus the same should be the procedure followed by the respondent Board. The National Board of Examinations administering the DNB degree has the liberty to frame its own rules and regulations and the rules of counseling or any other cannot be termed as unreasonable by comparing with the rules set forth by the AIIMS or any other body conducting examinations.
7. It is also a settled legal position that a candidate after participating in the selection process of taking the entrance examination and the counseling process cannot turn around and challenge the same as the rules and guidelines framed by the respondent-Board were within the knowledge of the petitioner before participating in the same and therefore, the petitioner thus waives off her right to challenge the said counseling procedure once having taken the said examination. It would be relevant here to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttranchal (2008)4SCC171 which has reiterated the said legal position in the following words:
"In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.”
(Underlining supplied)
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 5 of 9
“2. A learned Single Judge of the High Court interpreting the rules directed that when after the first counselling any subsequent counselling is decided to be held for allocation of remaining seats including those which have fallen vacant subsequent to the first counselling, the same shall be notified to the public and the first date of each subsequent counselling will be reserved for the candidates who were allotted seats at the earlier counselling and who wish to change their seats and out of the candidates, who were allotted seats at the first counselling, who turn up for subsequent counselling on the first date which is served for such students, distribution of seats which have fallen vacant subsequent to the first or earlier counselling will be done according to merit. The change of seat to these students who have been allotted seats during the first and earlier counselling will be permitted only in respect of seats which have fallen vacant after the first counselling and not of the left over seats.
3. Aggrieved by these directions, an appeal was preferred by the Director General of Medical Education and Training. The Division Bench, after considering the scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein and the decisions of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Veena Gupta (Dr) v. University
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 6 of 9
of Delhi and of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations, held that any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the three counselling by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit amongst the wait listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is available, the same should be included in the initial counselling. If by mistake a seat is not included in the initial counselling then the effect is that nobody opts for the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all the candidates for counselling, the result would be that all the candidates who took part in the first counselling should be given a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there will be one seat more, which would become available for the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will start leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling for all candidates would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair, there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the said seat to the wait listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a period of three years and if the counselling goes on continuously for a long period then it may not be possible to fulfill that condition and thereby upset the course of study itself. On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against this order and connected matters that the present appeals are filed by special leave.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High Court and before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and Delhi High Court in Dr.Veena Gupta case and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Anil Jain case is in accordance with the reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 7 of 9
exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period.
5. The grievance made is that if a choice subject like surgery and medicine is given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of the Rule.”
(Underlining supplied)
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 8 of 9
counseling then the seat being vacated by the petitioner rank 29 would then be offered to candidates ranking 30 down to 6,000 and likewise in the case of all the seats of the petitioners. This would unsettle the entire counseling process which would then become unending.
Order Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 17, 2016
VLD
W.P.(C) No.9507/2016
Page 9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates who opted for confirmed seats in the first round of counseling remain ineligible for subsequent rounds despite vacating those seats.
Whether allowing previously selected candidates to re-enter counseling for vacant seats would disrupt the admission process.
Whether clause 13.7 of the information bulletin restricting participation of candidates who opted for confirmed seats is reasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shikha Aggarwal v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶23
WP(C) No.6125/2011 Shikha Aggarwal v. Union of India dated 24th August, 2011
Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P.Relied on¶24
(2001) 8 SCC 355 Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. · Who else cites this
Dhananjay Malik vs. State of UttranchalReferred¶38
(2008) 4 SCC 171 Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttranchal · Who else cites this
Veena Gupta (Dr) v. University of DelhiReferred¶45
Veena Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi
Anil Jain v. Controller of ExaminationsReferred¶45
Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations
Priyanika Chaudhary & Ors
National Board of Examinations
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
