Disposed¶9

Maitreyee Rai v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC7 May 2026W.P.(C)/7388/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

It is clear that the respondents are not seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner. ¶8

Maitreyee Rai Vs University of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition of the Surety Bond (Annexure P-2) requiring all certificates and degrees to be kept in the custody of respondents Nos. 2 & 3 until payment of the surety bond, the Bulletin of Information clause 9.9 (iii) and (iv) requirement to furnish a surety bond of Rs. 5.0 lacs, and the impugned letters dated 08/06/2015 and 2nd June, 2015 are liable to be held null and void and quashed, with a direction to permit the petitioner to join the Post Graduate Medical Course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics at MAMC, Delhi. +1 more

¶1

Ratio / Principle

It is clear that the respondents are not seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner.

¶8

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 2 has, till date, not initiated any action against the petitioner for seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs.ratio¶8
Since the respondents are not seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs, the petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶9
The questions of law raised in the petition are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 226) by an MBBS graduate who, through counseling, was allotted a postgraduate medical diploma (DGO - Gynaecology & Obstetrics) at MAMC, Delhi, conditional upon depositing original documents and furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 5 lakhs under clause 9.9 (iii) and (iv) of the DU Bulletin of Information; she declined to submit her originals, never joined, and sought quashing of the certificate-custody condition, the bond requirement and impugned letters dated 08/06/2015 and 02.06.2015. At hearing, counsel fairly confined the surviving prayer to the respondents' letter dated 04.07.2015 demanding payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. Relying on the respondents' sur-rejoinder (course duration over; petitioner never joined) and finding that the respondents were not seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs and that respondent No. 2 had initiated no recovery action till date, Jasmeet Singh, J. disposed of the petition as infructuous, expressly leaving all questions of law open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

¶1

$~19

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7388/2015 MAITREYEE RAI .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Mahipal Singh Rajput and Mr. Yogendra Tripathi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Mr. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Tripta Sharma, Advs.

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R 07.05.2026

¶9

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :-

¶10

“To issue writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or order thereby holding the condition of Surety Bond (Annexure P-2) mandating the student to undertake to agree to condition of keeping all the certificates and degrees in the custody of the respondent No. 2 &3 till the payment of surety bond is made and the condition as provided in clause 9.9 (iii) and (iv) of Bulletin of information (Annexure P-3) providing for furnishing Surety Bond of Rs. 5.0 lacs as well as the impugned letters No. FDMS/247/PG/Adm. (counseling)/010/ 2015/7920 dated 08/06/2015 and letter No. FIV1DC/247/PG/ Adm.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:56:10

¶13

(counseling)/10/2015/7993 dated 2^nd June, 2015 to be null and void and be quashed with further direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join Post Graduate Medical Course in Gynecology and Obstetrics in MAMC, Delhi as the same is necessary in the interest and furtherance of justice.

¶14

Award cost of this Writ Petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”

¶15

The facts are that the petitioner completed her MBBS from Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission to postgraduate degree/diploma in Delhi University in March, 2015.

¶16

The petitioner through counseling was allotted a post graduate medical diploma in Gynecologist and Obstetrics, DGO in MAMC, Delhi but was required to-

¶17

a) Deposit original documents and

¶18

b) Give a surety bond of Rs. 5 lakhs.

¶19

The petitioner was not agreeable to the submission of her original certificates and thus wrote numerous letters informing the respondent that the said condition could not be imposed. The respondent did not agree to the same and the petitioner was not allowed to join the PG Course in MAMC.

¶20

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner neither deposited the originals nor the surety bond nor availed of the seat allotted to her.

¶21

Mr. Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly states that the only prayer is regarding quashing of the letter dated 04.07.2015, wherein

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:56:10

¶24

the respondent has sought the petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent.

¶25

Mr. Rupal, learned standing counsel for the respondent draws my attention to paragraph 5 of the sur rejoinder which reads as under:-

¶26

“5. The present Writ Petition has become infructuous as of now since the duration of the said course is over and the Petitioner did not join the same after fulfilling the condition provided for in the Bulletin of Information.”

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondents are not seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 till date have not initiated any action against the petitioner for seeking recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs.

¶28

For the said reasons, the petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

The questions of law raised in the petition are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

MAY 7, 2026/NG

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:56:10

Maitreyee Rai v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maitreyee Rai v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Kumar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Rumaan Nazir Kidwai Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax

Gaurav Mittal Suspended Director of Chd Developers Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vridha Ashram Charitable Trust (Regd) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Somnath

Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division, Wazirpur & Anr.

Priya Srivastava Vs the Registrar Center for Railway Information Systems and Ors.

R.N.Verma Vs UOI & Ors.

Vridha Ashram Charitable Trust (Regd) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Baba Ramdal Surajdev Pharmacy College Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Shiv Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Udaya Sandya College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Vasudev Excellence College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Maa Urmila Devi College of Pharmacy (PCI-5912) Vs Pharmacy Council of India