HARIKUMAR GANESAN PILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a doctor who passed the Diplomate of National Board Exam in the discipline of Orthopaedics in June 2010. In connection with a joint convocation that was scheduled on 01.02.2012, a list of gold medalists in various disciplines, inter alia for the June 2010 session, was published by the 2nd respondent. In the said list, the petitioner was shown as entitled to receive the gold medal in the discipline of Orthopaedics. Ext. P3 public notice dated 6th January, 2012 is produced by the petitioner to show that his name was shown as the person entitled to receive the gold medal in the discipline of Orthopaedic Surgery for the June 2010 session. Thereafter, by a separate communication of the same date, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Director of the 2nd respondent organisation that he was selected for the award of gold medal in the specialty of Orthopaedics for the session June 2010 and he was requested to attend the 17th Convocation of the Board to be held on 1st February, 2012 at New Delhi to receive the gold medal in person. Thereafter, by Ext. P6 communication dated 10.01.2012, the petitioner was informed that he was not selected for the award of the gold medal in the specialty of Orthopaedics for the session 2010. The reason given for the change in stand of the 2nd respondent was that the petitioner had passed the theory examination only in the 4th attempt and the practical examination in the first attempt. This, according to the 2nd respondent, was not in conformity with the criteria for awarding the gold medal as per the guidelines in force. On receipt of Ext. P6 communication, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the same as well as Ext. P5, which is the revised public notice issued consequent to Ext. P6, and seeking a declaration that the petitioner was entitled for the award of gold medal in the discipline of Orthopaedic Surgery.

(2.) After the writ petition was admitted, and taking into consideration the fact that the convocation was scheduled on 01.02.2012, this Court by an interim order dated 30.01.2012, directed the 2nd respondent to award the gold medal that had been promised to the petitioner pursuant to Exts. P3 and P4 in the convocation. It was made clear that immediately on receipt of the gold medal the petitioner would return the same to the 2nd respondent and await orders in the writ petition regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to receive the gold medal. The petitioner did not however get the benefit of the interim order referred to above since, by the date of the convocation, the 2nd respondent had approached the Supreme Court through an SLP and obtained an interim order of stay against the operation of the order dated 30.01.2012 of this Court. It is brought to my notice that thereafter the SLP itself was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) Although the 2nd respondent had thought it fit to contest the matter before the Supreme Court, no counter affidavit has been filed before this Court in the present writ petition. This is despite repeated directions to the 2nd respondent to file a counter affidavit in the matter. At this stage, other than deprecating the conduct of the 2nd respondent in not responding to the directions of this Court, I do not wish to make any further observations regarding the conduct of the said respondent in the present proceedings.