SANDEEP P.S. Vs. THENMOZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions relate to counselling for post MBBS diploma courses conducted by the National Board of Examinations at New Delhi. While the challenge in the first writ petition namely WP No: 7720 of 2020 is to clause 4.5 of the Handbook for admission issued by the National Board of Examinations for the academic session 2020-21 the second petition namely WP No: 8193 of 2020 seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting the second round of counselling without rectifying the said clause. The first petitioner in W.P.No: 7720 of 2020 is the sole petitioner in W.P.No: 8193 of 2020. The issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical; hence both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is as follows: The petitioners are MBBS graduates who had taken up the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate Medical Education 2020 hereinafter referred to as NEET-PG-2020. Having secured the required minimum marks, the petitioners became eligible for admission to postgraduate Medical courses for the academic session 2020-21. The National Board of Examinations an autonomous academic body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is conducting post - doctoral examinations in approved specialities and is awarding Postgraduate Diplomate commonly called as DNB. The decree awarded by the second respondent is equivalent to a postgraduate qualification awarded by any other Indian University and is considered to be a super speciality degree. The counselling for admissions to the said courses conducted by the second respondent, in various private as well as government multi-speciality hospitals, throughout the country is held based on the marks obtained by the candidates in NEET-PG-2020.

(3.) The second respondent, the National Board of Examinations, had issued a Handbook detailing the procedure to be adopted at the counselling. As per the procedure registration and filling up options/choices of available seats is to be made by 08-05-2020. During the said period candidates are expected to make their choices of seats and also rank their preferences. The counselling being done online, seats are allotted to the candidates in accordance with their choices depending on their marks and preferences. The petitioners are aggrieved by Clause 4.5 of the instructions which restricts the right of the candidate who has been allotted a seat in the first round of counselling to participate in the second round of counselling only if he or she relinquishes the seat so allotted. According to the petitioners the National Board of Examinations had introduced this procedure which was given up by it in 2016 again during this academic year. It is also the further case of the petitioners that all the other universities and boards which offer postgraduate Medical education under the umbrella of the Medical Council of India do not restrict participation of the candidates, who were allotted a seat in the first round of counselling, in the second round of counselling while retaining the seat allotted to them by paying the required fee. Inspiration is drawn, by the petitioners, from the procedure adopted by the National Board of Examinations for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20 to contend that the new procedure which curtails the right of the candidates, who freeze their seats allotted to them in the first round, from participating in the second round of counselling would deprive them of a right to choose a better course in a better institution if it is available in the second round of counselling.