Sanjeev Dikshit vs University of Delhi and Others

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) We propose to dispose of these three writ petitions by a common order since the questions arising therein are almost same and similar.

(2) Dr. Sanjay Dikshit preferred Civil Writ No. 2578/94 praying for appropriate directions that the option of the courses given by respondents 2 to 7 for various post-graduate degree/Diploma courses in various institutions be declared as illegal and to further declare that the courses which have fallen vacant the candidates in the waiting list according to merit may be considered. respondent No. 1 is the Delhi University and respondents 2 to 7 are the candidates who had taken the screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi for admission to post-graduate degree/diploma courses 1994-95 for which screening test was held on 26/ 27/02/1994.

(3) Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bawari mentioned as A. Bawari, shown as respondent No. 3 and Dr. Anil Kr. Aggarwal shown as respondent No. 7 in Cw 2578/94, have also preferred two separate writ petitions, namely, CWs. 2707/94 and 2708/94.

(4) Both these petitioners have prayed, for the quashing of the decision taken by the Board of Research Studies of Medical Sciences of the University taken in its meeting held on 6/06/1994 by which petitioner in Cw 2707/94, Dr. RajeshBawari was declined extension to join the post-graduate course and Dr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal (petitioner in Cw 2708/94) was sought to be excluded from counseling which was scheduled to be held on 30/06/1994. The background in which the writ petitions came to be filed may be noticed.

(5) Dr. Bawari after completion of MBBS degree course and compulsory internship from Delhi University in the year 1991 got himself registered as a medical practitioner with Medical Council of India on 14.1.1991. He took the Delhi Post Graduate Entrance Examination in March, 1992 and was declared successful. He was allotted a two-years diploma course in Anesthesia at Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi which he joined on 1.7.1992. In normal course this 2-years diploma course inclusive of examination was expected to be over by June,1994 but as per the examination programme dated 25.1.1994, University postponed the examinations and the same are now scheduled to be held from 18/07/1994to 2/08/1994. Dr. Bawari felt desirous of pursuing higher medical studies and decided to take screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi for admission to various post-graduate degree course in 1994-95 session. In January, 1994 he submitted an application in which it was also stated by him that he was already pursuing the diploma course in Anesthesia which was to come to an end in the month of June, 1994 namely before commencement of the post-graduate degree course in 1994-95. Screening test was held on 27.2.1994. He was declared successful and was placed on merit at S. No. 50. In the first counseling on 10.4.1994 Dr. Bawari was allocated a seat in M.S. Orthopedics at University College of Medical Sciences and was advised to join the course by2.5.1994. Since his diploma course examination was not yet over, Therefore, he expressed difficulty to join the course by 2.5.1994 and informed the Counseling Board accordingly whereupon counselling board advised him to seek extension of time from the University for joining the course which according to him, as per past practice followed by University would have been granted to him. On 21.4.1994 are presentation was submitted by him to the University seeking permission to join M.S. Orthopedics course after his diploma examinations were over and similar representation was given to the Principal, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. He has now learnt that the Board of Research Studies for Medical Sciences in its meeting held on 6.6.1994 had declined to grant extension to join the course. He has questioned this decision.

(6) The facts in Cw 2708/94 are somewhat similar. After completion of his M.B.B.S. Degree course and compulsory internship Dr. Anil Kr. Aggarwal joined2-years diploma course in tuberculosis and chest diseases at V.P. Chest Institute, Delhi on 2.7.1992, which according to him would have been over by June, 1994. He was also desirous of higher studies for which purpose he decided to take screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University for admission to post-graduate degree course 1994-95. An application was submitted by him and against the relevant column he disclosed the factum of his pursuing the diploma course in Tuberculosis and chest diseases. He was declared successful and ranked in merit at S.No. 153. He was called for counselling on 11.4.1994 and was allocated a seat in M.D. Tuberculosis and chest diseases at V.P. Chest Institute, Delhi. He was likewise advised to join the course by 2.5.1994. Counselling Board was informed by him that since his diploma course examinations were not over, it would not be possible for him to join the course by 2.5.1994 whereupon the Board is stated to have advised him to seek extension of time. Instead of seeking extension. Dr. AnilKr. Aggarwal on 28.4.1994 surrendered the seat and opted to have his name in the waiting list to be considered at subsequent counselling which was due to be held on 30.6.1994 but on 7.6.1994 when went to University he came to know that he would not be called for second counselling due to the reason that he had not completed his diploma examination so far. This decision of the University is under challenge by him.

(7) In Cw 2578/94 it is the case of Dr. Dikshit that he passed MBBS in March,1992 and did house job in casualty and medicine from January, 199 2/12/1992 in Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi and also worked thereafter as Junior Resident in Rajan Babu T.B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Desirous of obtaining higher medical education he took the screening test for postgraduate degree and diploma courses conducted by the University on 27.2.94 and was placed at Sr. No. 181 in order of merit. In the first counselling he opted for Diploma in Child Health in Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi but before the due date of joining, namely, 2.5.1994 he informed the University on 29.4.1994for being placed in waiting list to be considered for counselling due to be held on30.6.1994. The sole grievance of Dr. Dikshit is that respondents 2 to 7 who have been pursuing various post-graduate degree or diploma courses ought not to have been allowed to appear in the screening test conducted by the University on 26/27.2.1994 and that could not have been considered for counselling on 10 and 1 1/04/1994. In the merit list prepared after screening test, respondents 2 to 7 were placed at Sr. Nos. 48, 50, 114, 119, 124 and 153. Since they have already been pursuing post-graduate degree or diploma courses in various institutions in Delhi, allowing them to participate in screening test or to allow them to join 1994-95session is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench in Veena Gupta Vs. University of Delhi, .

(8) Dr. Sanjeev Dikshit first approached this Court with writ petition in which notice was issued to the University of Delhi. It filed its counter on the affidavit of Prof. S.K. Vasan, presently functioning as Registrar of the Delhi University taking up the stand that a number of students who were in the final year of post-graduate degree or diploma courses appeared in the entrance examination in order to seek admission to fresh courses of study during academic year 1994-95. Such of the candidates who appeared at the first counselling of 10/11.4.1994 and opted for different subjects were required to join the courses by 2.5.1994. However, the candidates who have not completed the. courses of study being undergone by them were not allowed, to join and extension of time asked for by them to join the courses was rejected by the Board of Research Studies. The University took up a stand that from 1995-96 session it has proposed to take 10.4.1994 as the cut off date for determining the eligibility of candidates seeking admissions to post graduate degree/diploma courses but for 1994-95 session it will abide by the Court''s directions as regards cut off date since a peculiar situation has arisen during this year due to postponement of the dates of examinations of the on going postgraduate courses.

(9) On 27.5.1994 when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court ,University was called upon to furnish particulars of those candidates whose right to admission was likely to be adversely affected if 10.4.1994 was to be taken as the cut off date for the purpose of determining eligibility also for 1994-95 session. As a consequence of this order a list of 60 candidates was submitted who had appeared in the entrance test and were in the merit list and would be affected if .10.4.1994 is fixed as the cut off date. On 29.6.1994 while rule was issued by way of interim order, the counselling for the last stage of admission which was due to beheld on 30.6.1994 was directed to be postponed till the decision of the writ petition.

(10) On 4.7.1994, Shri Swatanter Kumar appearing for the two petitioners who are respondents 3 & 7 in Cw 2578/94, stated that no separate counter affidavit need be filed and averments made by these two petitioners in these writ petitions be read as counter to Cw 2578/94. University filed its separate elaborate counter affidavit in Cw 2707/94 which was stated to be taken as counter in both the petitions.

(11) The University has tried to justify its action in opposition to the writ petition filed by Dr. Bawari and Dr. Aggarwal by contending that it is not open to student to simultaneously pursue two different courses at the same time in the university Unless the candidate concerned has completed the course he is undergoing he cannot seek admission to and cannot be permitted to join another course .Since both these petitioners were undergoing courses in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at the relevant time, namely 10.4.1994 the date fixed for the first counseling or in any case on 2.5.1994, the date fixed for joining the post-graduate degree/diploma courses and had not completed their diploma courses yet and had also not taken examination therein, Therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. The course of study being undertaken by them would be complete only with the holding of examinations. It has been stated in counter affidavit by the University that it proposes to fix 10th of April as the cut off date for determining eligibility of candidates for seeking admission from the next academic year 1995-96. Fixing the cut off date with reference to the date fixed for commencement of the counseling would facilitate the smooth functioning of the scheme and enable the students to join the course within the stipulated period and would limit the number of vacancies that may arise after the date fixed for commencement of the course. In so far as the current year is concerned. University would abide by the directions of this Court in determining a cut off date. It is also suggested in the affidavit that the eligibility be determined with reference to the first date of counselling, namely, 10.4.1994 thereby enabling the University to exclude from the waiting list and merit position candidates such of the candidates who are not eligible to seek admission to any course during the current academic year. In the alternative, it has also been suggested that the eligibility can also be determined with reference to 30/06/1994 the last date fixed for counselling being the last date before the closing of the admission ,namely, 1.7.1994.

(12) In the light of the aforementioned pleadings we have heard Mr. J.L. Kalra,appearing for the petitioner in Cw 2578/94, Mr. Swatanter Kumar for the petitioners in CWs. 2707 and 2708 of 1994 and Mr. A. Mariaputtam for the respondent University .

(13) It is contended by Mr. Kalra that there has to be a cut off date for determining the eligibility for admission - whether it is 10.4.1994 the first date of counseling or 30-6-94 the last date of counselling. In addition to the cut off date University is bound to disallow such of the candidates for being considered for admission ,who on the cut off date were pursuing a different course in the same University and, thus, contended that respondents 2 to 7 can not be considered for admission to the course in question.

(14) Mr. Swatanter Kumar, on the other hand, has vehemently contended that when there has been a practice followed by the University for quite sometime in the past in extending the period for joining the course, the same cannot be stopped abruptly by it especially when due to no fault of the candidates. University has not been in a position to conduct the examinations in time. Petitioners who had joined the diploma course in 1992 in normal course would have completed the same by June 1994 well before the commencement of the course in question namely 2.7.1994and as per past practice petitioners legitimately expected that extension of time for joining the course would be granted to them since it is for no fault of theirs that till June 1994 University was not in a position to complete the examinations. Moreover such of the candidates who joined the diploma course in 1992 are being clearly discriminated against vis-a-vis the post-graduate candidates who had joined degree course in 1991. In the case of post-graduate degree students. University conducted the examinations in June and declared the results on 27.6.1994 but insofar as the diploma students are concerned, the examination is scheduled to beheld from 18th July to 2/08/1994. Thus, it is due to the University''s own act that examinations would not be over by 2.7.1994 when the course would commence. In such circumstances in the past the University had been allowing extension .

(15) Mr. A. Mariaputtam frankly conceded that after directions were issued by the Apex Court in Dr Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, dealing with the post-graduate degree/diploma courses and in the two decisions of this Court in Sandhya Kabra and Others Vs. University of Delhi, and Dr. Veena Gupta''s(supra). The University has strictly been adhering to the time schedule. In order to facilitate the candidates it has been the practice in the University to allow extension of time in joining the course in case a candidate is not in a position to join the same on the scheduled date. It is also contended that a peculiar situation has arisen during this year when University has not been in a position to complete the examinations for the post-graduate degree and the diploma candidates who had been pursuing such courses before the commencement of the counselling and in the case of diploma candidates prior to the commencement of the course for 1994-95.But that alone will not give a right to the petitioners in the two petitions, namely,2707 and 2708 of 1994 to claim as of right extension of time or claiming to be considered for admission. On both the relevant dates namely 10.4.1994 or 30.6.1994they had been undergoing course of study in post-graduate diploma and their examination would not be over before 2/07/1994.

(16) A few facts brought to our notice during hearing also deserve to be noticed .There were 173 seats notified for post-graduate degree course and 74 seats for the post-graduate diploma course. In the first counselling candidates from Sr.No. 1 to 500 in accordance with merit were called. The present position as regards vacancies is 48 and 29 seats respectively for post-graduate degree and diploma courses. There are as many as 217 candidates in the waiting list in the second counselling and in addition candidates from 501 to 600 will also be called.

(17) Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the problem arising we would not like to make any observation as to what should be the cut off date for determining eligibility of candidates for the post-graduate degree and diploma courses in future. It is a matter which deserves to be dealt with by the University and it may adopt a reasonable date which may be deemed fit and proper ,keeping in view the directions issued in the aforementioned decisions and the time schedule for courses. However, we find that the petitions can be disposed of without entering into discussion on various aspects addressed at the Bar. It is not in dispute that the University had not notified for the current year as to what would be the date which would be taken as the cut off date for determining eligibility of candidates. It is also not in dispute that the two petitioners, viz., Dr. Bawari and Dr. Aggarwal along with other similarly situate candidates while submitting their applications for being allowed to participate in the screening test conducted for the post-graduate degree or diploma courses for academic year 1994-95, against the relevant column had duly disclosed the factum of their pursuing post-graduate degree/diploma courses. Thus, the University had notice of this fact that the petitioners were undergoing diploma course when they submitted their applications. It is also not in dispute that even at the time of screening test the petitioners had apprised the authorities concerned that they were undergoing diploma courses which they had joined in the year 1992. They were allowed to appear in the test and were declared successful and were placed in the merit list and it is also not in dispute that they were also called for counselling and were allowed seats. Dr.Bawari sought extension for joining whereas Dr. Aggarwal before 2.5.1994 expressed his desire for being placed in the waiting list so as to entitle him to be called for the second counselling. It is also not in dispute that as per the programme the date of close of admission is 1.7.1994. It is also not in dispute that in the normal course the petitioners would have completed the diploma course in June, 1994including the taking of the examination and declaring of the results but for the postponement of examination by the University which are now fixed from 1 8/07/1994 to 2/08/1994. It is also admitted that in so far as post-graduate degree students are concerned, who were undergoing their course of study, examinations were held in June, 1994 and result was also declared on 27.6.1994.

(18) Chapter Iii of the University Ordinance deals with the University examinations and conditions for admission to examinations. Ordinance 7.1.(3) refers to the period of regular course of study which a candidate is required to pursue before being allowed to appear in examination. In the case of post-graduate degree, the duration of regular course of study is 3 calendar years whereas in the case of diploma the period of regular course of study is 2 calendar years. There is a distinction between the duration of course of study to be pursued and completion of course. Immediately on completion of the courses of study of degree or diploma, a candidate may or may not appear in the examination. University permits a candidate to take examination subsequently also and in the case of degree students5 years time limit from the date of completion of course of study is allowed. In the second Appendix in Vol. Ii of University Calendar under the head post-graduate degree Courses, Clause 18 states that students admitted to any post-graduate degree course shall have to pass the examination within 5 years after submission of thesis ,for the course and the thesis as per Clause 10 is to be submitted after pursuing 2 years study in post-graduation.

(19) The stand of the University is that since the petitioners had not completed the courses which they had been undergoing they could not seek admission to and could not be admitted to other course. Duration of the course of study of postgraduate degree students, as noticed above, is 3 calendar years and for diploma 2calendar years. A post-graduate degree student before being permitted to take the final examination at the end of a third year, is required to submit a thesis in a specified area at the end of the second year. During the first two years, a postgraduate student receives training for selecting a subject and for preparing a thesis under the guidance of a supervisor concerned. In Dr. Sandhya Kabra''s case (supra)the Full Bench noticed the peculiar nature of the post-graduate course as follows:

"the post-graduate courses in medicine do not contemplate of mere attendance of lectures. For the purpose of imparting post-graduate teaching and training to the student, the University has recognised different hospitals and institutions based on the facilities and expertise available in the said institutions and hospitals. Once a student is selected to undergo post graduate study in a particular speciality in a particular institution, that student is then assigned to the said institution. The said student, apart from being a postgraduate student of the University, is simultaneously required to work as a regular Doctor in the institution/hospital concerned, especially if the postgraduate course of the student is clinical in nature. The post-graduate student would be required to attend to patients in the particular department pertaining to his course of speciality and also discharge the duties of a Doctor in the said department. The recommendations of the Medical Council of India also stipulate that in service training should be given to the candidates and the same requires a candidate to be a resident in the hospital campus with responsibility of management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. A student so working in the hospital is paid monthly stipend for the work he does in the hospital."

(20) The Bench also noticed that under the recommendations of the Medical Council of India it is mandatory that the student-teacher ratio in all post-graduate degree courses be maintained at 1:1 and it is in accordance with these recommendations that as soon as a post-graduate student joins the course in a particular speciality, he is put under the supervision or guidance of a teacher in that speciality.

(21) In case the course of study has been completed by the petitioners, which fact is not disputed and only examinations are to be taken by them which they can take within a period of 5 years, it cannot be said that they are still undergoing The course of study either as a post-graduate degree or diploma student. Course of study in normal circumstances will come to an end on completion of 3 calendar years in the case of a degree and on completion of 2 calendar years in the case of a diploma candidate from the date of joining of the course. In so far as the postgraduate degree students are concerned, there is no dispute that in their cases the University declared their results on 27.6.1994 and they are being considered for being admitted for fresh courses in 1994-95. On the first date of counselling neither their examination was over nor had the result been declared. It is stated that their results have been declared prior to the date of closure of admissions. In the case of the candidates who were undergoing diploma courses who had also sought admission in the course in question the examination has not been conducted. Thus a very peculiar situation has arisen. For resolving this it can safely be said that they as per practice adopted by the University had a legitimate expectation that examinations in their case would also have been over and results declared much before the closure of the admission for the course in question on 1.7.1994 or in any case they also legitimately expected that they would be permitted by the University extension of time in joining the course. It is more so when even till 16.6.1994 the University did not notify them that their candidature cannot be accepted or that they were ineligible. In case university wanted to take either 10.4.1994 or 30.6.1994as the cut off date for determining the eligibility, it ought to have given a due notice prior to inviting application for the screening test which was not done. At this stage the University cannot be allowed to take up the stand that they were not eligible candidates .There is also no reason as to why the University during this year should have deviated from the past practice in the matter of grant of extension of time.Thus, by applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, both Dr. Bawari and Dr.Anil Aggarwal and other similarly situate candidates who have being doing diploma courses will be entitled to the extension and will also be entitled for being considered for admission, as the case may be irrespective of the fact that they have not yet appeared in the examinations and their results having not been deader since the period of 2 calendar years for which they were expected to undergo course of study has admittedly came to an end till 30.6.1994.

(22) In these circumstances, we allow CWs 2707 and 2708 of 1994 and dismiss CW 2578/94. The impugned decision of the Board of Research Studies of Medical Sciences ,incorporated in Annexure X in Cw 2707/94 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner Dr. Bawari will be granted extension for joining the course till 20.8.1994since as per the Programme the P.G. Medical Diploma Annual & Supplementary, the examinations will be over by 2.8.1994, we direct that the result of the examinations be announced on or before 17.8.1994 and the petitioner Dr. Bawari be permitted to join the course by 20.8.1994. A suitable date will now be fixed-and duly notified by the University for the second counselling for all the eligible candidates including Dr. Anil Aggarwal and other similarly situate persons.