Dr. Rakesh A.V. vs The Union of India and Dr. Jitender Chaturvedi

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The brief facts are as follows:

The petitioner had completed his M.B.B.S. from the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, in 2010 and had applied for a Post-Graduate Super Specialty course in M. Ch. Neuro Surgery through the second respondent, which is a Deemed University under the All India Entrance Examination conducted by it. The examination was conducted on 24.06.2012. The M. Ch. examination was conducted for eight available seats out of which, five seats were reserved for the Post-Graduates who had completed their Masters in Surgery and three seats were reserved for the M.B.B.S. category. On 28.06.2012, the second respondent announced the rank list and the successful candidates were invited for counseling on 6.7.2012, in the order of merit. The petitioner found that as per the merit list, the petitioner was placed on Sl. No. 4 and the third respondent was placed at Sl. No. 3. The third respondent incidentally is a Senior Resident at the University College of Medical Sciences, Guru Tej Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi and is a Post Graduate. He had completed his M.S. in General Surgery about 18 months prior to taking the examination and therefore, he was aptly to be considered for the Post-Graduate seats reserved. However, it transpires that the third respondent had chosen to appear for the examination in the M.B.B.S. category, though he was a Post Graduate. It is to the shock and surprise of the petitioner that he has been assigned a ranking in the M.B.B.S. category along with the petitioner and it is the third respondent who has been ultimately selected for a seat in the M.B.B.S. category to the M. Ch. Neuro Surgery. It is this circumstances which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions.

This court, by a detailed order dated 23.08.2012, had found on the face of it that having regard to the sequence of events and the date on which the petition had been filed, since the third respondent had availed the benefit of the admission in the M.B.B.S. category and had progressed in the course, this court opined that it was not fair to set aside the admission made in favour of the third respondent and held that on hearing the matter on merits, if the petitioner should succeed, he would at best be entitled to monetary compensation from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is in this background that the petition is taken up for final hearing.

On the face of it, as there is no prohibition from a Post Graduate seeking admission in the M.B.B.S. category and the third respondent having chosen to do so, the question is whether this has caused prejudice to the petitioner by virtue of the petitioner having been deprived of a seat which was certain, if the third respondent had not entered the stream, which was meant exclusively for M.B.B.S. candidates. Notwithstanding that there is no such prohibition, on the face of it, it would be unfair to mix up categories when in the first instance the very categorization is made with a particular intention. Notwithstanding that a Post-Graduate is permitted to enter the stream meant for M.B.B.S. candidates and that it would undergo an additional three years by virtue of the same, that by itself should not enable such a Post-Graduate student to steal a march over an M.B.B.S. Graduate who would be deprived of admission to the seat which he would otherwise be entitled. It is possibly on this anomaly having noticed that this court is now informed that there is clearly no such provision available to a Post-Graduate student as of today, to enter the stream meant for M.B.B.S. students. This would certainly disclose that the petitioner was right in his challenge to the admission of the third respondent in the manner that it has occasioned.

Therefore, it can summarily be held that the petitioner succeeds in these petitions on principle. However, having regard to the fact that the third respondent has almost completed the two year course and having regard to the fact that he would still have to undergo three more years of study before he is in a position to earn, the question of mulcting the said respondent with damages to a degree which he may not be capable of meeting, would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, while holding that the petitioner has been unfairly deprived of a certain admission to the course which he has been unable to achieve after a further attempt made by him, it is appropriate that he is compensated by a nominal damages. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Respondent No. 3 shall pay a nominal sum of Rs. 5,000/- as damages to the petitioner, which they shall remit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. With that, the petitions stand disposed of.