VARUN RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had appeared for Centralised Entrance Test (CET) for Diplomate of National Board (DNB), 2009 held by the respondent No.2 National Board of Examinations (hereinafter called the Board) and declared "Pass". The petitioner was selected by the respondent No.3 Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (hereinafter called the Hospital) for three years DNB training in the ENT department and admitted to training on 9th February, 2009. The Hospital thereafter sent the papers to the Board for registration of the petitioner. The Board on receipt of an anonymous complaint to the effect that the Hospital in admitting the petitioner had breached the procedure, investigated and found that the father of the petitioner was working as a Senior Consultant in ENT Department in the Hospital and the petitioner had been admitted for training under the tutelage of his father only. The Hospital had submitted a declaration to the Board inter alia to the effect that none of the students admitted to DNB training were related to any promoter, owner or consultant to the Hospital. The Board found the admission of the petitioner for DNB training in the Hospital to be contrary to the said declaration also and accordingly, vide letter dated 28th July, 2009 to the Hospital, rejected the application for registration of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner continued to make representations and upon the same meeting with no success, finally preferred this petition. Notice of the petition was issued notwithstanding this Court being of the opinion that the Hospital in selecting the petitioner had favoured the petitioner on the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that as per the Rules of the Board there was no bar to the selection of a candidate by a Hospital in which his father is working as a Consultant and the only bar is to the father being not involved in the selection process, it was contended that the father of the petitioner was not involved in the selection process.

(3.) The Board has filed a counter affidavit and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.