MANOHAR SINGH RATHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under .of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to direct the respondent no.2 hospital to quash the selection made for the single seat of DNB(secondary) in Radiodiagnosis for January 2011 session and allow the petitioner to join the course in question.

(2.) Facts shorn of unnecessary details relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner applied in the stream of Radiodiagnosis in response to the respondent no.2 hospital s advertisement/notification published on its website inviting applications for the DNB Secondary seats for January 2011 session where the selection of the shortlisted candidates was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the Post Graduate course and the admission was to be granted at the time of counseling on the appointed date. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the shortlisted candidates, the petitioner had the first rank owing to his marks in the post graduation and respondent no.4 was third in the said list and at the time of counseling, instead of there being counseling, an interview took place and in the impugned result, respondent no.4 was declared selected for the single seat in DNB(secondary) RadioDiagnosis instead of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid act of the respondent no.2 hospital in not following the guidelines of the respondent no.3 National Board of Examinations, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the respondent hospital has not followed the criteria laid down by the respondent no.3 NBE whereunder for DNB (Broad Specialty) Secondary Seat, the respondents 1 and 2 could have conducted a counseling and not the aptitude test/interview. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had scored the highest marks in Diploma in Radio Diagnosis out of the 24 candidates to secure admission in the said DNB Specialty Course. Counsel further submitted that the respondent hospital had no authority to frame their own guidelines and that too in violation of the guidelines framed by the NBE. Counsel also submitted that the report filed by the NBE pursuant to the directions given by this court is contrary to their own guidelines and unjustifiably they have gone to the extent of endorsing the said illegal conduct of the respondent hospital. Counsel also submitted that the NBE guidelines permit the respondent hospital to devise a mechanism of allocating 100 marks by allocating 75% marks to P.G. Diploma, 2.5% marks for experience, 2.5% for academic and 20% for interview. Counsel also stated that even the aptitude test was not conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 in terms of the criteria laid down under the NBE guidelines. Counsel also submitted that even the selection committee was not constituted by the respondent in terms of clause 1 (c) of the Standard Procedure to be followed of the NBE guidelines.