THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 39. + LPA 860/2011 HARI NATH YADAV Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Adv. for R-1 Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-3 + LPA 861/2011 41. • INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR g &ALLIEDSCIENCES Appellant Ihrough; Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates versus HARI NATH YADAV & ORS Respondents Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 18.10.2011 LFA 860/2011 It is not in dispute that for admission to DNB (Neurology) course, passing of CET-DNB (Super Specialty) examination is a pre-condition and the appellant did not have that qualification. Merely because he was wrongly selected by the Selection Committee of the institute contrary to Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified i the rules, such wrorig selection would not confer any right upon him. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge, after detailed discussion of the law on subject, has rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant inter alia holding that when the appellant lacked essential qualification for admission to the course, no undue sympathy could be shown by the court on account of the fact that after wrongful admission to the DNB program, the appellant had undergone the said course for a period of four months before the rejection order was served upon him. For y, the wrong done by the respondent No.2 institute, the learned SingleJudge has imposed a cost of Rs.l Lakh on respondent No.2 and compensated the appellant with the said cost. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed. LFA 861/2011 This appeal is filed by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences which was respondent No.2 in the writ petition and has challenged the order whereby cost of Lakh is imposed by the learned Single Judge upon this appellant. We are of the view that there was negligence on the part of this institute as well which prompted the learned Single Judge to impose the cost. That is a discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. However, the order directing the respondent No.2 to re-examine the accreditation of the institute with the respondent No.l is hereby reversed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. OCTOBER 18, 2011 pk ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J