Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DAILYLAW 3436 (DEL)

Harish Verma v. Delhi University

2012-01-13

A K Sikri, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. The petition impugns the Notification dated 13th December, 2011 issued by the respondent Delhi University notifying that the University will not conduct Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test (PGMET) for admission to MD/MS/MDS Diploma courses under 50% Delhi University quota for the Session-2012 and that admission thereto will be made on the basis of merit obtained in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE) to be held on 8th January, 2012. 2. The contention in this petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation is that since the respondent University in the past was holding a separate test i.e. PGMET for admission to the said courses, it cannot discontinue doing so. Mandamus is sought directing the respondent University to hold PGMET for admission to the aforesaid courses in the academic session 2012. We enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to what prejudice the aspirants for admission to the said course suffer by non holding of a separate admission test. The only reply is that PGMET in the past used to be held in the first week of February each year; that the said aspirants were thus under the impression that they had time till first week of February, 2012 to prepare for the said test; however they had notice of less than a month from the said Notification of the AIPGMEE which was made the basis for admission to the said courses also. 3. No student has come before us making the said grievance. The counsel for the University has on the contrary contended that all aspirants for admission appear in AIPGMEE as well as in PGMET to ensure admission either in the All India quota or in the Delhi University quota. It is further stated that even the seven petitioners who have preferred this petition in public interest have applied for appearance in AIPGMEE and it is not as if they were pegging their hopes only on PGMET. 4. It is evident from the aforesaid that no case of any prejudice is made out. The petitioners and/or other aspirants for admission are expected to have prepared for the AIPGMEE also. 4. It is evident from the aforesaid that no case of any prejudice is made out. The petitioners and/or other aspirants for admission are expected to have prepared for the AIPGMEE also. If the respondent University decides to make admissions to the Delhi quota seats on the basis of the result of AIPGMEE also, the petitioners and/or other aspirants are not found to have any right to insist on a separate examination being held particularly when both examinations are for admission to the same course with the two being for separate quota of seats. 5. In this regard, we may also mention that the Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us i.e. Acting Chief Justice has in judgment dated 23rd December, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 4294/2011 titled Noopur Chawla v. University of Delhi and other connected writ petitions accepted the contention of the petitioners therein for holding of a joint common entrance examination though qua allocation of nominees of Government of India seats in various colleges in Delhi which included Delhi University as well and put our imprimatur on a joint common entrance examination rather than separate examination being beneficial to the students. Upon attention of the counsel for the petitioners herein being invited thereto, he seeks to aver errors in the said judgment. However the remedy therefor is elsewhere. 6. AIPGMEE is conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Though the counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is not permissible for Delhi University to delegate or outsource the conduct of examination to AIIMS but we do not find any merit in the said contention also. 7. The decision as aforesaid of the respondent Delhi University to make admissions to the courses under its own quota of seats on the basis of AIPGMEE is a policy/administrative decision non-interferable in exercise of powers of judicial review. In any case no ground therefor is made out. The holding of common entrance examination is the norm of the day and the times and the aspirants to the course are not found having any vested right to appear in separate examination. 8. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. JUDGMENT : 1. In any case no ground therefor is made out. The holding of common entrance examination is the norm of the day and the times and the aspirants to the course are not found having any vested right to appear in separate examination. 8. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. JUDGMENT : 1. The petition impugns the Notification dated 13th December, 2011 issued by the respondent Delhi University notifying that the University will not conduct Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test (PGMET) for admission to MD/MS/MDS Diploma courses under 50% Delhi University quota for the Session-2012 and that admission thereto will be made on the basis of merit obtained in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE) to be held on 8th January, 2012. 2. The contention in this petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation is that since the respondent University in the past was holding a separate test i.e. PGMET for admission to the said courses, it cannot discontinue doing so. Mandamus is sought directing the respondent University to hold PGMET for admission to the aforesaid courses in the academic session 2012. We enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to what prejudice the aspirants for admission to the said course suffer by non holding of a separate admission test. The only reply is that PGMET in the past used to be held in the first week of February each year; that the said aspirants were thus under the impression that they had time till first week of February, 2012 to prepare for the said test; however they had notice of less than a month from the said Notification of the AIPGMEE which was made the basis for admission to the said courses also. 3. No student has come before us making the said grievance. The counsel for the University has on the contrary contended that all aspirants for admission appear in AIPGMEE as well as in PGMET to ensure admission either in the All India quota or in the Delhi University quota. It is further stated that even the seven petitioners who have preferred this petition in public interest have applied for appearance in AIPGMEE and it is not as if they were pegging their hopes only on PGMET. 4. It is evident from the aforesaid that no case of any prejudice is made out. It is further stated that even the seven petitioners who have preferred this petition in public interest have applied for appearance in AIPGMEE and it is not as if they were pegging their hopes only on PGMET. 4. It is evident from the aforesaid that no case of any prejudice is made out. The petitioners and/or other aspirants for admission are expected to have prepared for the AIPGMEE also. If the respondent University decides to make admissions to the Delhi quota seats on the basis of the result of AIPGMEE also, the petitioners and/or other aspirants are not found to have any right to insist on a separate examination being held particularly when both examinations are for admission to the same course with the two being for separate quota of seats. 5. In this regard, we may also mention that the Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us i.e. Acting Chief Justice has in judgment dated 23rd December, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 4294/2011 titled Noopur Chawla v. University of Delhi and other connected writ petitions accepted the contention of the petitioners therein for holding of a joint common entrance examination though qua allocation of nominees of Government of India seats in various colleges in Delhi which included Delhi University as well and put our imprimatur on a joint common entrance examination rather than separate examination being beneficial to the students. Upon attention of the counsel for the petitioners herein being invited thereto, he seeks to aver errors in the said judgment. However the remedy therefor is elsewhere. 6. AIPGMEE is conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Though the counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is not permissible for Delhi University to delegate or outsource the conduct of examination to AIIMS but we do not find any merit in the said contention also. 7. The decision as aforesaid of the respondent Delhi University to make admissions to the courses under its own quota of seats on the basis of AIPGMEE is a policy/administrative decision non-interferable in exercise of powers of judicial review. In any case no ground therefor is made out. The holding of common entrance examination is the norm of the day and the times and the aspirants to the course are not found having any vested right to appear in separate examination. 8. There is no merit in the petition. In any case no ground therefor is made out. The holding of common entrance examination is the norm of the day and the times and the aspirants to the course are not found having any vested right to appear in separate examination. 8. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.