Delhi HC Upholds Notification Issued 45 Minutes Prior To Counselling Session For PG Courses By DG Of Armed Forces Medical Services
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a Single Judge bench’s order in an appeal refusing to quash a notification issued by the Director General of Armed Forces Medical Service (DGAFMS) on the ground that it had abruptly changed the eligibility criteria right before the counselling session for admission to Post Graduate courses in Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) institution. The bench was instead of the opinion that the impugned notification has been uniformly applied to all candidates and therefore, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary.
Accordingly, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “…we find no basis to fault in the decision of DGAFMS to stipulate a condition preventing candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling, should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the MCC in the third round of counselling. This provision, in our assessment, is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Instead, it reflects a systematic approach to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the counselling process, ensuring that all participants are subject to the same rules and expectations. Finally, we must underscore that the admission procedure for medical seats is constrained by stringent timelines. Allowing candidates to engage in perpetual participation in subsequent rounds of counselling, even after seats have been allotted, would inexorably lead to an interminable admission process, thereby undermining the efficacy and purpose of a time-bound system”.
Advocate Mrinal Harshvardhan appeared for the petitioners and CGSC Ripu Daman Bhardwaj appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the appellant had sought quashing of a notification dated October 5, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 2– Director General of Armed Forces Medical Service (DGAFMS) had further sought directions to reconduct the entire counselling process afresh based upon the original merit list as also the original counselling rules advertised in the information bulletin. However, the said challenge was dismissed by the Single Judge through its impugned order.
On January 7, 2023, an Information Bulletin was published by Respondent No. 4–National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) inviting applications from prospective applicants for admissions in postgraduate courses through NEET-PG examination. The results were declared on 14th March, 2023 whereafter the Appellants registered for participation in counselling process on the portal of Respondent No. 3– Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and opted for seats offered for AFMS under the “Priority-V” category.
On October 4, 2023, a notification with the eligibility criteria seat matrix and merit list was published on the website of AFMS institutions, and on the same day, a mock counselling session was also conducted. However, just 45 minutes prior to the actual counselling session scheduled on October 5, 2023 at 10 AM, the impugned notification came to be issued by DGAFMS.
The Appellants are aggrieved by the impugned notification, which prescribes that any candidate who has already joined an institution / allocated a seat in Round 3 of counselling conducted by MCC will not be allotted any seat in AFMS institutes. The Appellants contend that they have been arbitrarily denied the right to participate and take admission in the counselling session due to last minute change in the counselling rules. It is further contended that the rules of the game cannot be changed at a belated stage i.e., the eligibility criteria cannot be changed immediately prior to commencement of counselling rounds.
It was submitted by the appellants that the impugned order fails to account for the fact that counselling conducted by MCC is completely distinct and separate from counselling conducted by DGAFMS and there is no composite counselling scheme in this regard. Counselling conducted by MCC and AFMS are governed by separate information bulletins and as such there is no overlapping of the same.
Therefore, while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (read report), it was argued that once applications are received following an advertisement inviting applications, a rule cannot be brought in to disqualify an applicant from the selection process.
However, the bench observed that the reliance on Karunesh Kumar was misplaced as “The said ruling reiterated that the principles governing changing the rules of game would apply to changes in qualification and eligibility criteria, but not in respect to the selection process. Therefore, this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as there has neither been any change in the qualification/ eligibility criteria, nor in the selection process”.
Cause Title: Sakshi Rathore And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors [Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7796-DB]
Click here to read/download the Judgment