Meera Rani v. University of Delhi & Another

2. The learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that they have re-checked the answers contained in the answer key and on re-consideration of the matter by experts, it has been found that the answer contained in the answer key in respect of question NO. 16,88,107,108 and 111 were wrong, whereas all options given in the answer key in respect of question No. 106 were wrong. The result was re-computed on the basis of the correct answers, after excluding question No. 106 from consideration and after giving due credit to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.2 for the correct answers, it was found that both of them got 85 marks each out of total of 120 marks.

3. Clause 2.12.[1] of the Bulletin of Information which deals with the situation where two or more candidates obtain equal marks reads as under:- “Admission would be made strictly on the basis of merit of the eligible candidates determined by marks obtained in the PGMET (H). In case, two or more candidates obtain equal marks in PGMET (H) the inter se merit of such candidates shall be determined in order of preference as follows: i. The candidate who has got more aggregate marks, taking into consideration marks of all the four professional examination of BHMS course together with in first attempt, will be given preference for admission. ii. If the candidates have equal marks in BHMS degree also, after taking into consideration marks of all the four professional examination, then the candidate older/oldest in age will be given preference for admission.”

4. It was found that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.2 had cleared all the four professional examinations of BHMS course together in the first attempt. Therefore, neither of them could be given preference in the admission. The petitioner had 2886 marks in the four professional examinations out of 5100, whereas respondent No. 2 had 2907 marks. Therefore, respondent No.2 on account of her having higher marks in BHMS examination was declared the holder of rank NO. 1. It is true that there is no specific rule which provides for giving preference to the candidate having higher marks in BHMS when none of the candidates having equal marks has cleared all the four professional examinations together in the first attempt, but, considering that clause

(ii) of clause 2.12.[1] of the Bulletin of Information would apply only if the candidates have equal marks in BHMS degree, the criteria of age cannot be applied. In the absence of any criteria in this regard in the Bulletin of Information, the respondent-University, in my view, was fully justified in granting first rank to respondent No. 2 on the ground that she had higher marks in BHMS. Since there is only one seat in the course, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the aforesaid course.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the University can be directed to create another post to accommodate the petitioner. That, however, cannot be directed in a writ petition. Only one seat in MD (Homoeopathy) was notified by the University and, therefore, one seat could be filled up on the basis of the result of the entrance examination. The respondent No.2 having got equal marks in the entrance examination and also having got higher marks in BHMS examination, she had rightly been given admission to the aforesaid course. The writ petition, in these circumstances, is dismissed, without any order as to costs. V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 09, 2013 BG