# Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-27
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2756 of 2022
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-anand-kumar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49083
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Education - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Right to equality - Admission
for medical course - Denial of admission -
Permissibility - Rights to put back back in
original position, restitution thereof -
Held, an admission in medical course is
very important in the professional life of a
candidate/student
and
payment
of
compensation to such candidate/ student
would not be a just and equitable relief -
A right to equal and fair treatment is
imbibed as a component of Article 14 of
the Constitution and any denial of fair
treatment to the petitioner would not only
violate his/her right under Article 14 of
the Constitution but would also seriously
jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19
& 21 of the Constitution - The petitioners
can claim restitution of their rights and
9 All. Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
must be put back in the original position.
(Para 28 and 29)
B. Education - Admission for medical
course - Cut-off dates - Violation - Effect
- Two similarly situated candidates were
allowed to join, how far relevant - Held,
the cut-off dates are sacrosanct and the
violation thereof cannot be compromised
- Although, the petitioners claiming parity
have been successful in demonstrating
that they are entitled to be treated equally
with candidates, however the hands of
this court are tied and we would not
depart from the settled view of academic
schedule in order to add further anamolies
- Further held, While our sympathies are
with the petitioners and other similarly
placed, we are unable to grant any relief
to them or approve of the distinction
pointed out; unfortunately, sympathies
cannot supplant the Law - High Court
granted liberty to the petitioners to
pursue for compensation. (Para 32 and
33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and not otherwise and thus the no objection
certificate as required under Clause 2:3:5 is
confined to that issue alone.

28. The Supreme Court while dealing
with some guidelines framed by the State
of Kerala for granting NOC to the
institutions applying for afffiliation with
CBSE hads held in the case of State of
Kerala vs Mythri Vidyabhavan English
Medium School (2020) 20 SCC 669 held
that the guidelines issued should have some
relevant nexus with the object sought to be
achieved.

29. In the present case, not only a
roving enquiry has been made but the
State has gone ahead in taking decisions
which it could not had taken in the garb
of requirement of grant of no objection
certificate for affiliation. Thus, I have no
hesitation in holding that the State
Government has exceeded its mandate in
rejecting the request for grant for no
objection certificate for affiliation. I am
not going into the question of validity of
the Government Order as the same is not
under challenge in the present writ
petition. As there is no bar in affiliation
of schools with Boards other than the
U.P. Board in the State of Uttar Pradesh
as various schools affiliated to both
CBSE and ICSE Boards are imparting
education in the State, there is no reason
available with the State to deny the no
objection certificate, which is required
only for grant of affiliation and nothing
more. All the other issues pertaining to
the grant of affiliation as sought by the
petitioner before the CBSE have to be
dealt with by the CBSE in accordance
with their rules which have been held to
be pragmatic by the Supreme Court in
case of State of Kerala (supra). Thus, the
order dated 08.10.2021 is quashed with
directions to the respondents to grant the
no objection certificate for affiliation as
sought by the petitioner within a period
of two months from today.

30. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the said order.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 538
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 2756 of 2022

Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ram Kumar Srivastava, Alok Srivastava, Saima
Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kshitij Mishra

A. Education - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Right to equality - Admission
for medical course - Denial of admission -
Permissibility - Rights to put back back in
original position, restitution thereof -
Held, an admission in medical course is
very important in the professional life of a
candidate/student
and
payment
of
compensation to such candidate/ student
would not be a just and equitable relief -
A right to equal and fair treatment is
imbibed as a component of Article 14 of
the Constitution and any denial of fair
treatment to the petitioner would not only
violate his/her right under Article 14 of
the Constitution but would also seriously
jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19
& 21 of the Constitution - The petitioners
can claim restitution of their rights and
9 All. Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
must be put back in the original position.
(Para 28 and 29)
B. Education - Admission for medical
course - Cut-off dates - Violation - Effect
- Two similarly situated candidates were
allowed to join, how far relevant - Held,
the cut-off dates are sacrosanct and the
violation thereof cannot be compromised
- Although, the petitioners claiming parity
have been successful in demonstrating
that they are entitled to be treated equally
with candidates, however the hands of
this court are tied and we would not
depart from the settled view of academic
schedule in order to add further anamolies
- Further held, While our sympathies are
with the petitioners and other similarly
placed, we are unable to grant any relief
to them or approve of the distinction
pointed out; unfortunately, sympathies
cannot supplant the Law - High Court
granted liberty to the petitioners to
pursue for compensation. (Para 32 and
33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021; Dr Rohit
Kumar vs Secretary Office of Lt. Governor of
Delhi & ors. decided by Supreme Court on
15.7.2022
2. Priya Gupta Vs St. of Chattisgarh & ors.;
(2012) 7 SCC 433
3. Asha Vs PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Sciences & ors.; (2012) 7 SCC 389
4. Priya Darshni Dental College & Hospital Vs
U.O.I.; (2011) 4 SCC 623
5. Royal Medical Trust & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
AIR 2015 SC 3300
(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The stream of allopathic medical
education in Bharat at the level of post
graduate courses is broadly academic or
experience oriented. Diplomate of National
Board (DNB) at the post graduate level lays
more emphasis on experience, therefore,
the allocation of selected candidates is
preferred in the hospitals and now in the
medical colleges as well. The experience
oriented course recognised as DNB PG
Diploma course is treated at par with PG
medical courses recognised by Medical
Commission of India

3. Mid session admissions to the
medical courses, whether graduate or postgraduate, are impermissible in view of the
judgement cited before us reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 258 (Medical Council of
India vs. Madhu Singh and others).

4. To buttress the submission put forth
on behalf of the opposite parties, placing
reliance upon the judgement rendered by
the apex court in the case of Dr Astha Goel
and others vs. Medical Counselling
Committee and others reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 734, it was submitted
that admission would not be permissible
after the session has already begun.

5. The controversy before us,
however, has fallen for consideration under
peculiar circumstances. It is worthy to note
that the petitioners, for the relief sought
herein,
have
approached
this
Court
promptly and without leaving any scope for
the objection of delay.

6. The brief facts for appreciating the
controversy may be set out as under.

7. The petitioners participated in NEET2021-22 (PG) while being members of
State Medical Services, U.P. All of them
have qualified in NEET-21 (PG) whereafter
they were to appear in counselling in order
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to be allotted respective hospitals or State
medical colleges. All the petitioners have
opted for DNB PG Course, the allotment
whereof was based on counselling to be
held by U.P Medical Education department
as per schedule.

8. In the counter affidavit placed on
record, the scheduled date of counselling
started from the month of January and
ended on 28.4.2022. The first round of
counselling was held in January, 2022;
round two was held in February, 2022 and
mop-up round was held on 28.4.2022
insofar as State quota seats of which the
figure corresponds to 44 and 25 in the
respective courses of DNB Diploma and
Primary DNB respectively are concerned.

9. The petitioners who had duly
participated in the mop-up round of
counselling on 28.4.2022, despite having
presented themselves for allotment of State
medical colleges, were not allotted the
same for want of a NOC being issued by
the department of Medical Health. It is for
this reason that the colleges were not
allotted to the petitioners hence they could
not report to the colleges for admission and
deposit of fee to pursue their course.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that once the
petitioners had duly qualified NEET2021(PG) and had participated in the mopup round of counselling held on 28.4.2022,
there was no reason for the department of
Medical Education and Training to have
withheld
the
allotment
of
respective
medical colleges merely on account of nonissuance of NOC by the department of
Medical Health, U.P.

11. The allotment of colleges being
within the sole prerogative of the department
of Medical Education, who, according to the
petitioners, was vested with such a power
ought not to have kept the candidature of the
petitioners hanged over on that account
particularly when the other candidates
similarly situated were allotted the courses
based on the same selection result of NEET21 (PG)..

12. The petitioners who were not
communicated any reason except orally that
the colleges cannot be allotted unless NOC is
granted by the department of Medical Health,
approached this Court at the earliest objecting
to the discriminatory treatment which they
were meted with. The petitioners have prayed
for the relief as under:

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the opposite parties to ignore and
suspend the terms and conditions of G.O.
dated 10.02.2022 of Para-3(2) for permitting
10 seats and petitioners be allotted DNB PG
seats in the colleges for 26 vacant seats, as
per G.O. dated 01.11.2021 for DNB (Post
M.B.B.S. Diploma) by extending the date of
allotment of seats.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to
provide the "No Objection Certificate" to
petitioners after allotting the seats for DNB
(Post M.B.B.S Diploma) course, so that they
may submit the same for Post M.B.B.S
Diploma Course with immediate effects.

(iii) issue any other order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit, just
and proper in the circumstances of the case
may also passed in favour of the petitioners."

13. On the aspect of NOC, the
department of Medical Health, U.P. had
placed reliance upon a government order
dated 10.2.2022 whereunder only ten
9 All. Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
NOCs were permitted to be granted to the
successful candidates for allotment of seats
in the medical colleges but the government
order having come to be challenged before
this Court in Writ-C No. 1624 of 2022 vide
judgement dated 4.4.2022, was held to be
prospective and inapplicable to the NEET2021 (PG) held much prior to the issuance
of such government order. Likewise an
order was also passed in favour of Dr
Akansha Verma on 3.6.2022 in Writ-A No.
3395 of 2022 for grant of NOC which was
acted upon vide letter dated 18फ/56/2016
dated 14.9.2022.

14.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that the bar of ten
seats as provided under the government
order dated 10.2.2022 has also come to be
lifted with the issuance of a subsequent
government order dated 9.9.2022 in view
of the orders passed by this Court.

15. It is rather an admitted position
before us at this stage that the Director
General of Medical Health, U.P. has
already granted permission for NOCs vide
letter dated 3फ/261/2015 in favour of the
petitioners on 16.9.2022, therefore, the
grievance that survives is as regards the
allotment
of
the
petitioners
to
the
respective
colleges
against
DNB-PG
Diploma course for which the options
exercised by the petitioners have to be
acted upon like other similarly situated
candidates.

16. This Court had granted time to the
Director General, Medical Education and
Training, U.P. to come up with a solution to
the legitimate grievance of the petitioners
but despite our order passed on 19.9.2022,
the Director General failed to appear before
this Court to assist in the matter and instead
the Joint Director, namely, Dr V. B Singh.
was deputed to attend the proceedings and
assist the Court in the matter. This may be
on account of some personal difficulty that
should
not
sway
away
the
Court
proceedings. The officer present has taken
us through the record.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the
Director
General,
Medical
Education
vehemently argued that since the academic
session has already begun, therefore, the
petitioners
cannot
be
accommodated
against the vacant seats and there is no
mechanism of redressal that can be invoked
at this belated stage.

18. We have carefully gone through
the material placed on record. In the first
round of counselling held in the month of
January, 2022, the start of session was
mentioned
to
be
w.e.f.
1.2.2022.
Admittedly the second round of counselling
proceeded thereafter in February/March
and the candidates were allowed to join the
respective courses as per the allotment of
hospitals/colleges made. Insofar as the
seats belonging to State quota against
DNB-PG Diploma courses are concerned,
the last round of counselling i.e. mop-up
round was held on 28.4.2022 and except
two candidates, namely, Dr Akansha Verma
and Dr Sanjay Singh, no other candidate
was allotted a college.

19. Even the two candidates who
were allotted the college could not join
before 7.5.2022 which was fixed as
deadline for admissions against State quota.
Interestingly all the candidates who were
allowed to participate in the mop-up round
of
counselling
on
28.4.2022,
their
commencement of admission as per the
own circular of Director General, Medical
Education issued on 22.4.2022, was fixed
as ''on spot'.
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. This position is evident from the
schedule circulated on 22.4.2022 filed
alongwith the counter affidavit. It is
according
to
this
schedule
that
the
petitioners had participated in the mop-up
round of counselling on 28.4.2022 but due
to non-issuance of NOC, they were not
allotted the respective colleges of which the
list was available with the department in
the same circular dated 22.4.2022.

21. The list of respective colleges and
hospitals against which the allotment was
to be made were readily opted by the
petitioners during counselling process,
however, the allotment was not made for
want of NOC by the department of Medical
Health, which hurdle, does not exist any
more with the issuance of government
order dated 9.9.2022 placed before us.

22. Rule of equality is fundamental in
a level playing field. Moreover, the rights
of a candidate who succeeds on the basis of
competition and merit cannot be subjected
to discrimination. NEET-21 (PG) is the
foundation of rights against available seats.

23. Ms Saima Khan, learned counsel
for the petitioner in support of her
argument put forth, has placed reliance on a
judgement of the apex court rendered in the
case of Dr Rohit Kumar vs Secretary
Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi and
others (Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021)
decided on 15.7.2022. Learned counsel for
the petitioners invited our attention to para33 of the judgement which is reproduced
below:

"33. The proposition of law which
emerges from the judgments of this Court
in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) and in
National
Medical
Commission
v.
Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others
(supra) is that in rare and exceptional cases,
a meritorious candidate, who has suffered
injustice by reason of his/her inability to
secure admission in a medical course,
whether under-graduate or post- graduate,
due to no fault of his/her own, who has
taken recourse to law promptly, without
delay, might be granted relief of being
accommodated in the same post in the next
session."

24. It is not in dispute that two
candidates Dr Akansha Verma and Dr
Sanjay Singh who were allotted colleges in
the mop-up round held on 28.4.2022 were
granted NOCs in September, 2022 and have
been allowed to join the medical college in
the month of September, 2022 itself. The
NOC in favour of Dr Akansha Verma was
issued on 14.9.2022 vide letter no.
18फ/56/2016, whereas, NOC in favour of
Dr Sanjay Singh was granted vide letter no.
2फ/706/2014 dated 9.9.2022.

25. The distinction drawn by the
department of Medical Education, U.P. that
they
were
allotted
the
College
on
28.4.2022, whereas, the petitioners were
not, is superfluous according to learned
counsel for the petitioners. The distinction
drawn
by
learned
counsel
for
the
department of medical education cannot be
accepted for the reason that admission to a
course is not dependent on the mere
allotment but joining of a candidate on
grant of NOC before the deadline. In the
present case the ''on spot' presence of the
petitioners on 28.4.2022 in the mop-up
round stood frustrated due to non-issuance
of NOC. The NOCs have now been
permitted to be issued on 19th of
September, 2022, therefore, equal benefit
of the NOCs is bound to be accorded to the
petitioners at par with Dr Sanjay Singh and
Dr Akansha, who on the basis of same
9 All. Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
merit and participation, have joined the
college after grant of NOCs on 9.9.2022
and 14.9.2022. Moreover, the present is not
a case of mid-term admission or subsequent
session; the petitioners belong to same very
session whose admission schedule got
delayed in 2021 due to covid-19.

26.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has argued that it is rather a case
of parity and there is no question of
negative parity of which the benefit is
claimed.

27.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners lastly submitted that there is an
age bar for candidates to appear in the
NEET-PG and one of the petitioners has
now lost the opportunity having become
overage, therefore, the benefit of merit
cannot be denied to the candidates in
absence of a fault attributable to them.

28. Having considered the entire
gamut of facts & circumstances of the
present case, this court holds that the
case of the petitioners is similarly placed
with the case of those two candidates,
who have been allowed to join the
course in the second half of September,
2022. Thus,
this
court
cannot
be
oblivious of the fact that an admission in
medical course is very important in the
professional life of a candidate/student
and payment of compensation to such
candidate/student would not be a just
and equitable relief. Further, a right to
equal and fair treatment is imbibed as a
component
ofArticle
14of
theConstitution and any denial of fair
treatment to the petitioner would not
only violate his/her right underArticle
14of the Constitution but would also
seriously jeopardize his/her right under
Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution.

29. Since, no fault is attributable to
the petitioners, as they have pursued their
rights and legal remedies expeditiously and
without any delay and there is obvious fault
on the part of the authorities and apparent
breach of the rules & regulations, this court
is of the view that the petitioners can claim
restitution of their rights and must be put
back in the original position.

30. Although, in view of the
celebrated
judgment
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. State of
Chattisgarh and Ors. reported in (2012) 7
SCC 433 and Asha vs. PT. B.D. Sharma
University of Health Sciences and Others
reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 it has been
held that in exceptional cases, the time
schedule for admissions can be relaxed,
however, this court is conscious of the fact
that the last date for providing admission in
the postgraduate course is declared as
07.05.2022 by the Central Government.

31. Since this court has noticed that
two candidates pursuant to the issuance of
NOC by the Directorate of Medical Health,
U.P., have recently joined the PG course in
the second half of September, 2022, this
court, during the course of hearing,
enquired from the parties as to how these
two candidates were allowed to join even
after the cut-off dates, the explanation
whatsoever offered, in our opinion, is
contrary to the dictum of the apex court. It
has been argued at the Bar that as per the
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in Priya Darshni Dental College
and Hospital vs. Union of India reported
in (2011) 4 SCC 623 and in Royal Medical
Trust and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 3300,
the Central Government is now statutorily
empowered to modify the schedule for
admissions in MBBS and postgraduate
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
courses and as such this Court is also very
well within its jurisdiction to modify the
schedule in the admissions to P.G. courses.

32. However, this court being of the
considered view that the cut-off dates are
sacrosanct and the violation thereof cannot be
compromised, therefore, negative parity of
any sort does not pursuade us to direct
modification of the schedule in PG courses as
it may adversely affect the PG admissions
calendar and it is open for the authorities to
take
corrective
steps
as
regards
any
concession that may have been granted
contrary to law. The judgment cited by the
learned Counsel of the petitioners has been
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
exercise of its plenary power under Article
142 of the constitution of India. Although, the
petitioners
claiming
parity
have
been
successful in demonstrating before this court
that they are entitled to be treated equally
with candidates, who have been granted NOC
by the state Government on 09.09.2022 &
14.09.2022 and have since then joined the PG
course as late as in the second week of
September, 2022, however the hands of this
court are tied and we would not depart from
the settled view of academic schedule in
order to add further anamolies.

33. It is tragic that the super-specialty
seats in medical courses are being wasted due
to the lack of empathy of the state machinery,
especially when there is a dearth of trained
specialist doctors in our country. While our
sympathies are with the petitioners and other
similarly placed, we are unable to grant any
relief to them or approve of the distinction
pointed out; unfortunately, sympathies cannot
supplant the law.

34. We do, however, find that the
petitioners
were
wronged
and
were
unnecessarily compelled to approach this
court.
Since,
there
is
no
claim
for
compensation by the petitioners as they have
sought for allotment of medical colleges to
them, this court in the peculiar facts &
circumstances grants liberty to the petitioners
to pursue for compensation/damages against
the
erring
respondents
in
a
separate
proceeding.

35. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed, with the liberty as aforesaid. In the
peculiar facts of the case, the respondent state
is additionally burdened with a cost of Rs.
25,000/- to be paid to each petitioner towards
the litigation cost of the present writ petition.

36. Let a copy of this judgment be
forwarded to the Director General, Medical
Education and Training, U.P, for necessary
compliance forthwith. Any apportionment of
the financial liability between the two
directorates shall be an internal matter of the
State but the actual payment of cost to each
petitioner shall be made by the Director
General, Medical Education & Training, U.P.,
within a month from today.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 6330 of 2022

Devendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Mansoor, Devendra Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rajendra Singh Chauhan