New Delhi: Delhi High Court to directed the AIIMS to preserve the video records of a counselling session for post-graduate medical courses held recently, which has come under challenge before it.
The court also issued notice for July 13 to a student who got admission in MD course in Nuclear Medicine even when his rank was allegedly behind the one who did not get the seat, observing that no order should be passed affecting his rights.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and A K Pathak was hearing an appeal against a single judge order filed by a student, who claimed he was not given admission in Nuclear Medicine course despite coming in second counselling.
The bench said “it would suffice to direct AIIMS to preserve the records including video record pertaining to the second counselling held on June 13, 2016…”.
“Insofaras first direction is concerned, we are in agreement with the counsels submission that it would be necessary to issue notice to respondent number 4 (student who got admission) in view of the circumstances that any order passed in this writ petition might affect his rights.
“It is right to say that no order/direction can be issued affecting rights of respondent number 4 without hearing him,” the court said, adding that the appeal is justified.
The appeal filed by advocate R K Saini challenged the June 15 order of the single judge of high court which had issued notice to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), its Dean (Academics) Dr Balram Airan, Sub-Dean (Academics) Dr V K Bansal but had not issued notice to the student who had been admitted.
It had sought direction to AIIMS and its officials to produce the video recording and other records of counselling at the time of hearing.
The petition also sought direction to the institute and its officials to cancel the admission of the student in the Nuclear Medicine course.
It said the appellant had appeared in the first counselling and as he could not get a seat in his preferred Nuclear Medicine course, he opted for second counselling.
It alleged that the candidate whose rank (1880) was far behind the rank of the appellant rank (1835) in the merit list, was admitted to the course “illegally, deliberately and with malafide intention … leaving the appellant in lurch.”