W.P.(C.) No.9621 /2009 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.9621/2009 % Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 Dr.Pawan Khurana …. Petitioner Through Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate Versus UOI & Anr. …. Respondents Through Ms.Lata Gangwani, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * 1. The petitioner is a doctor and is aggrieved by the Act of the respondent No.2 in not filling all 13 seats for the course of MD in Community Health Administration (CHA) for the academic session 2009-2012. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of condition No.2.6.3 of bulletin of information for the session 2009 and a direction to the respondents to fill up the seats for the post graduate course, MD (Community Health W.P.(C.) No.9621 /2009 Page 2 of 5 Administration) by granting grace marks or by holding interview or by conducting a fresh examination. 3. The respondent No.2 provides post graduate courses including M.D in Community Health Administration. The minimum qualification for admission to the said course is detailed in Clause 2.6.3 of bulletin of information which is as under:- “2.6.3 A candidate in order to become eligible for admission must obtain 600 marks out of 1200 i.e 50% marks in the PGMET. Provided that candidates belonging to SC and ST categories shall be required to obtain 480 marks out of 1200 i.e 40% marks in the PGMET and in case of OBC category of candidates shall be required to obtain 540 marks out of 1200 i.e 45% in PGMET.” 4. According to the petitioner there are 13 seats for the said course. The petitioner has asserted that in the bulletin of information it was categorically stipulated that there will not be any negative marking, however, that condition was changed and it was decided by the respondent to have negative marking. 5. According to the petitioner on account of negative marking no person has become eligible for admission to M.D course in Community Health Administration. It is asserted that even for the session 2008- 2010 five seats had remained vacant and in the circumstances it is contended that the eligibility conditions cannot be made so stringent so W.P.(C.) No.9621 /2009 Page 3 of 5 as not to admit even a single student. In the circumstances it is prayed that grace marks should be given or a fresh interview be conducted so as to admit the petitioner. 6. The petition is contested by the respondent No.2 contending inter-alia that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the material facts. It is contended by the respondent No.2 that petitioner had applied for the course of M.D in Community Health Administration. It is averred that an entrance examination was conducted in February, 2009 and since the applicability of negative marking was communicated orally as it was not incorporated in the bulletin of information and not communicated in writing to the individual students, on the demands being made by the students the examination held in February, 2009 was cancelled and a fresh examination was held on 1st March, 2009. For the fresh examination which was conducted on 1st March, 2009 notices were published in daily newspapers and individual letters and messages were sent to all the candidates intimating that the wrong answers will entail negative marking. According to the respondent No.2 the petitioner has suppressed this fact that the earlier examination conducted in February, 2009 was cancelled and a fresh examination was conducted after due intimation about the negative marking in the examination to every student including petitioner. The respondent No.2 has pleaded that petitioner and other candidates who have failed to obtain the minimum eligibility condition do not have a right to be W.P.(C.) No.9621 /2009 Page 4 of 5 awarded grace marks. It is also contended that the standard of education cannot be diluted on account of all candidates failing to qualify the minimum eligibility condition. In any case it is contended that the last date for joining the post graduate course was 20th June, 2009 and after that date no admission can be made and has been made especially in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court. 7. Regarding negative marking, it is contended that it has direct nexus to the object of admitting deserving candidates to the M.D course in the respondent university, as a candidate who is not certain of the answer and who take chances in answering, cannot be permitted to capitalize on his guess work. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why the petitioner did not disclose that an entrance examination was conducted in February, 2009 which was cancelled as the stipulation about the negative marking was not communicated individually to all the candidates. The petitioner in the circumstances is liable for the consequence of suppressing the material fact and is not entitled for exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction by the Court in his favor. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to show any right of the petitioner to be awarded grace marks in the examination W.P.(C.) No.9621 /2009 Page 5 of 5 especially in order to become eligible for admission to a post graduate course. Since the petitioner does not have a legal right to have the grace mark, the petitioner cannot claim a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the respondent in the facts and circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to explain as to how admission can be granted to the petitioner after 20th June, 2009 in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court fixing the last date for admission to the post graduate courses as 20th June, 2009. 10. In the circumstances, petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of the relief as prayed by him. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is misconceived and it is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost. July 29, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’