RAVINDER KUMAR MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,the pettnoer seeks admission to M.D. (Community Health Administration)Course of Delhi University for 1993 session. This petition was filed on 26/02/1994. The petitioner said he obtained M.B.B.S. Degree of Delhi University in 1982and completed his internship the following year. He then joined the Director ofHealth Sevices, Delhi Administration, as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis. He wasregularised in this service in October 1992 after he had knocked the door of theCentral Administrative Tribunal and certain directions were issued in the petitionthere. On 27/12/1992 he wrote to the Delhi Administration for permissionto join Post Graduate Course and for that purpose he appeared in the entranceexamination conducted by the Delhi University in March 1993. The petitioner sayshe was declared successful and was called for Counselling for 17/06/1993.However, he was in the waiting list and was finally selected for admission to M.D.(CHA) on 23/10/1993. At that time the petitioner was working as MedicalOfficer, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. By this time he had been unable to obtainpermission from his employers to join M.D. Course. He sent reminders to therespondents saying that he was entitled under the rules to study leave and at thesame time sought extension of time from Delhi University to join the course. TheDelhi University extended the time for his joining till 30/11/1993. It wasonly on II February, 1994 that the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave forthree years. When he approached the Delhi University for permission to join thecourse it was refused by letter dated 17/02/1994 staling that admission toPost Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for the session 1993 had already beenclosed and he could not, therefore, be allowed to join M.D. (CHA) at that late stage.This led the petitioner to file the present petition. He also seeks to have thecommunication dated 17/02/1994 of Delhi University quashed and wants amandamus to issue to the Delhi University to allow him admission in M.D. (CHA).

(2.) There are four respondents. First respondent is the Union of India in theMinistry of Health and Family Welfare; the second respondent is the Director ofHealth Services, Delhi Administration; the third respondent is the Government ofNational Capital Territory of Delhi (the Delhi Administration); and the fourthrespondent is the University of Delhi through its Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences,Delhi.

(3.) We issued notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be notissued. In its affidavit in reply by Delhi University reference has been drawn to theBulletin of Information of University of Delhi for admission to Post GraduateDegree Courses for 1993 session. In this bulletin last date for admission was I July1993 and earlier the session commencing on 3/05/1993. Reference has been drawnby Mr.Mahajan, learned Counsel for Delhi University, to a Full Bench decision ofthis Court in Dr. Sandhya Kabra \/.Union of India, (1992) 48 DLT 524, wherein it hasbeen held that the admission should close and course commence on 2 May eachyear and further that if there was any mistake which had been committed, then thesame should be rectified within two months of the commencement of the course.University states that initially the petitioner was not offered any seat and wasplaced in the waiting list. It was also explained as to why in the year 1993 there wassome delay in filling up the seats in All India quota and a large number of scats weresought to be surrendered to States and the matter was again re-examined by thisCourt and ultimately the University was directed to hold Counselling of the waitlisted candidates on 23/10/1993 and to allot the unfilled seats. It is then statedthat pursuant to this direction the petitioner was directed to appear for Counsellingon 23/10/1993 and was asked to join the course by 26/10/1993. Thepetitioner, however, did not join and instead requested for extension of time forjoining the course. Time was granted upto 30/11/1993 to enable him tosubmit the relieving certificate from his employer. Still the petitioner failed tosubmit the requisite relieving certificate and did not join the course. He wasinformed by letter date 23/ 24/11/1993 that in case he failed to submit therelieving certificate from his employer to join the course within the stipulated date,his admission to M.D. (CHA) Course for the session 1993 would stand cancelled.University says it is no fault of its that it has not been possible to allow the petitionerto join the M.D. (CHA) Course at this late stage when admission to post-graduatecourses for the session 1994 has already been in process and first year of 1993 coursealready completed. University states that rules and regulations have been adheredto and maximum extension has been granted to the petitioner upto 30/11/1993. University also points out that apart from the petitioner there are othersimilar cases of four or five candidates who also could not get admission due tonon-submission of relieving certificates from their respective employers and alsofor the reasons that training programme for the said courses had already beencompleted. University again asserts that first year of the course had been completed and the process for admission to 1994 session already started. In view of thestand taken by the Delhi University it appears difficult to us to direct it to admit thepetitioner at this late stage. Petitioner is seeking admission to a professional coursefor post-graduate studies and he has to be imparted proper knowledge for him toenable to treat the patients who would come under his charge.