Full Text
Translation output
\ $-40,41,45 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4168/2013
NAVEEN SUHAG
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
Kumar, Advs.
W.P.(C) 4168/2013
NAVEEN SUHAG
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
Kumar, Advs.
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS Respondent
Through: Dr. RakeshGosain, Adv. for NBE
Through: Dr. RakeshGosain, Adv. for NBE
W.P.(C) 4169/2013
RUCHIHOODA.....Petitioner Tln-ough: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
RUCHIHOODA.....Petitioner Tln-ough: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION MEDICAL ENCLAVE &
ORS
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for NBE
ORS
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for NBE
W.P.(C) 4174/2013
ANIL SOLANKI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. KirtiUppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
ANIL SOLANKI
Petitioner
Through: Mr. KirtiUppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS & ORS
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. forNBE
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. forNBE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
05.07.2013 The petitioners before this Court appeared in National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test for Post Graduate Course conducted by respondent no.l National
Board of Examination (NBE). The examination conducted by respondent no.l is
2013:DHC:7665 valid for admission against All India Quota, State Quota as well as Institution
Quota. The petitioners applied under the Category of OBC candidates and were issued admission tickets accordingly. However, in the result declared by respondent no.l, their names appear as unreserved category candidates. This, according to the learned counsel for the respondent no.l, was done because the categoiy to which the petitioners belong does not fmd inclusion in the list of
OBCs notified by Central Government. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.l states that it isonly for the purpose ofadmission against All India
Quota that the petitioners are being treated as candidates from the general categor>'. For admission against State Quota, the petitioners would still be eligible if they belong to a category included in the list of OBCs notified by the State
Govermnent. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University states that for admission against the seats in State Quota, they are relying upon both the lists i.e. the list of OBCs notified by Central
Government as well as the List of OBCs notified by Government of NCT of
Delhi. He further states that at the time of considering the admission of the petitioners against the seats in State Quota, they would consider them as OBC candidates in case theybelongs to a category included in the list of OBCs notified by Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi and subject to necessaiy verification inthis regard. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that necessary verification will be caiTied out at the time of counsellingas per the practice of respondent no.2.
In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for th ht no.l and 2, no further order needs to be passed in these petitions,^ id disposed of. No orders as to costs.
Dasti.
V \ ^K. JAIN, J JULY05,2013/rrf 2013:DHC:7665
05.07.2013 The petitioners before this Court appeared in National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test for Post Graduate Course conducted by respondent no.l National
Board of Examination (NBE). The examination conducted by respondent no.l is
2013:DHC:7665 valid for admission against All India Quota, State Quota as well as Institution
Quota. The petitioners applied under the Category of OBC candidates and were issued admission tickets accordingly. However, in the result declared by respondent no.l, their names appear as unreserved category candidates. This, according to the learned counsel for the respondent no.l, was done because the categoiy to which the petitioners belong does not fmd inclusion in the list of
OBCs notified by Central Government. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.l states that it isonly for the purpose ofadmission against All India
Quota that the petitioners are being treated as candidates from the general categor>'. For admission against State Quota, the petitioners would still be eligible if they belong to a category included in the list of OBCs notified by the State
Govermnent. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University states that for admission against the seats in State Quota, they are relying upon both the lists i.e. the list of OBCs notified by Central
Government as well as the List of OBCs notified by Government of NCT of
Delhi. He further states that at the time of considering the admission of the petitioners against the seats in State Quota, they would consider them as OBC candidates in case theybelongs to a category included in the list of OBCs notified by Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi and subject to necessaiy verification inthis regard. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that necessary verification will be caiTied out at the time of counsellingas per the practice of respondent no.2.
In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for th ht no.l and 2, no further order needs to be passed in these petitions,^ id disposed of. No orders as to costs.
Dasti.
V \ ^K. JAIN, J JULY05,2013/rrf 2013:DHC:7665
JUDGMENT