The Delhi High Court in the case Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors observed and has refused to entertain an appeal moved challenging the last-minute notification of the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, AFMS while preventing the candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling and should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the Medical Counselling Committee in the third round of counselling.
The bench headed by Single judge impugned an appeal of the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the notification whereby the eligibility criteria was changed.
The notification which is issued prescribed that any candidate who had joined an institution, or was allotted the seat, in the 3rd round of MCC’s counselling, the same would not be allotted seat in AFMS institutes.
It being the grievance of appellant’s that they were arbitrarily denied right to participate and take admission in the counselling session which is scheduled by AFMS for October 5, 2023.
It has also been contended by them before the court that the counselling processes of MCC and AFMS were completely different, yet Director General, AFMS had adopted MCC’s 3rd round of counselling as the base round for AFMS’.
The court noted that there was neither the change in the qualification or the eligibility criteria nor in the selection process.
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula in the case observed and has stated that this court do not find in the decision of DGAFMS to stipulate a condition which prevents the 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.
The court in the case observed that the admission procedure for medical seats is subject to stringent timelines, it was also highlighted that allowing perpetual participation in subsequent rounds of counselling would undermine the efficacy and the purpose of a time-bound system.
Therefore, the court stated that two of the appellants had tried to make a case of differential treatment by referring to the case Neha Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.
The court while rejecting the arguments stated that the observation in Neha Yadav was to the effect that “if a candidate is not allotted a seat in the third round of counselling, then such a candidate cannot be held to be disentitled for allotment of a seat by DGAFMS.
Adding to it, the court stated that there was no clarity w.r.t. the current status of the two appellants.
It has also been emphasized by the said court that the stipulations in the DGAFMS Information Bulletin unambiguously stated that the counselling procedures for AFMS sha ll adhere to the protocols established by the MCC for postgraduate courses. Thus, the impugned notification resonated with MCC guidelines.
Therefore, the court issued the impugned notification by DG, AFMS 45 minutes prior to the actual counselling session.