IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.644 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Directorate General of Health Services, Government of India (Medical Examination Cell), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi through its Director General. 3. The Assistant Director General (M.E.), Directorate General Health Services, Government of India (Medical Examination Cell), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Versus 1. PRITY RANJAN , D/o Nathun Singh, resident of Chak Musallahpur, Mohar Tola, P.O. Mahandru, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna 2. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Shikaha Kendra, 2- All India Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110301, through its Secretary ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst. Solicitor General of India For respondent no.1: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shashi, Advocate For respondent no.2: Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Advocate ------------------------- 2 11-05-2009 Heard the parties. From the materials on record it is evident that the writ petitioner/ the respondent no.1 herein appeared in the 2nd round of counselling and was given clear intimation that all the vacancies stood exhausted and hence, the writ petitioner got herself admitted in BDS course instead of MBBS course which she wanted. It is further clear that on account of certain unreported vacancies, the Supreme Court by judgement and order dated 28-8-2008 passed in writ petition (Civil) 375/2008 directed for holding extended 2nd counselling on 13-9-2008 and 14-9-2008 at Delhi. Information in that regard was directed to be put up on the website according to prevailing practice for the information of the concerned students. Such extended 2nd counselling was not a normal counselling as per schedule of events in the prospectus and the candidates were required to look for relevant information including extension of dates - 2 - etc. only till the stage of 2nd counselling. This is evident from the information bulletin and application form contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition. Page 1 of that information bulletin contains special notice and note No. 9 reads as follows: “For the latest updates, candidates must remain in touch with the website www. cbse.nic.in & www.mohfw.nic.in till the completion of 2nd round of counselling”. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the writ petitioner suffered legal injury when on account of lack of knowledge she could not appear in the 2nd extended counselling. In our view, even if clause 13 of the prospectus providing for information to the candidates by post or some other means was not strictly applicable, the requirement of Article 14 of Constitution of India was obvious and pursuant to that the relevant authorities were obliged to advertise through a national newspaper regarding such unusual development requiring extended 2nd round of counselling so that on the basis of such advertisement all the concerned candidates like the writ petitioner could have looked into the website mentioned in the information bulletin for necessary details of 2nd extended counselling. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to interfere with the findings of the writ court and the writ petitioner deserves to be given appropriate relief. As to what should be the appropriate relief is a difficult task in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the Union of India that unfilled seats in the MBBS course for the - 3 - academic session 2008-09 may have been surrendered and may not be available because the direction not to surrender such seats was given by an interim order of this court only on 24-11-08 whereas surplus unfilled seats were to be surrendered since the last date, that is, 30-9- 2008. In view of aforesaid submission on behalf of Union of India we feel that interest of justice requires that the relief granted to the writ petitioner by the writ court for her admission in MBBS course in the academic session 2008-09 be diluted to the extent that the concerned authorities be given an option that if it is not possible to admit the writ petitioner to the MBBS course in the session 2008-09 for any good reason then she must be given such admission against central quota of 15 % seats in the academic year 2009-10 in any medical college having recognition of MBBS course. For this we follow the precedent in the case of Khusbu Srivastava vs Union of India in which the Division Bench of this court directed for admission of the concerned candidate in the next academic session. With this modification in the relief portion, the appeal is dismissed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)