D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,the pettnoer seeks admission to M. D. (Community Health Administration)Course of Delhi University for 1993 session. This petition was filed on 26/02/1994. The petitioner said he obtained M. B. B. S. Degree of Delhi University in 1982and completed his internship the following year. He then joined the Director ofhealth Sevices, Delhi Administration, as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis. He wasregularised in this service in October 1992 after he had knocked the door of thecentral Administrative Tribunal and certain directions were issued in the petitionthere. On 27/12/1992 he wrote to the Delhi Administration for permissionto join Post Graduate Course and for that purpose he appeared in the entranceexamination conducted by the Delhi University in March 1993. The petitioner sayshe was declared successful and was called for Counselling for 17/06/1993. However, he was in the waiting list and was finally selected for admission to M. D. (CHA) on 23/10/1993. At that time the petitioner was working as Medicalofficer, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. By this time he had been unable to obtainpermission from his employers to join M. D. Course. He sent reminders to therespondents saying that he was entitled under the rules to study leave and at thesame time sought extension of time from Delhi University to join the course. Thedelhi University extended the time for his joining till 30/11/1993. It wasonly on II February, 1994 that the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave forthree years. When he approached the Delhi University for permission to join thecourse it was refused by letter dated 17/02/1994 staling that admission topost Graduate Degree/diploma Courses for the session 1993 had already beenclosed and he could not, therefore, be allowed to join M. D. (CHA) at that late stage. This led the petitioner to file the present petition. He also seeks to have thecommunication dated 17/02/1994 of Delhi University quashed and wants amandamus to issue to the Delhi University to allow him admission in M. D. (CHA ). ( 2 ) THERE are four respondents. First respondent is the Union of India in theministry of Health and Family Welfare; the second respondent is the Director ofhealth Services, Delhi Administration; the third respondent is the Government ofnational Capital Territory of Delhi (the Delhi Administration); and the fourthrespondent is the University of Delhi through its Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences,delhi. ( 2 ) THERE are four respondents. First respondent is the Union of India in theministry of Health and Family Welfare; the second respondent is the Director ofhealth Services, Delhi Administration; the third respondent is the Government ofnational Capital Territory of Delhi (the Delhi Administration); and the fourthrespondent is the University of Delhi through its Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences,delhi. ( 3 ) WE issued notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be notissued. In its affidavit in reply by Delhi University reference has been drawn to thebulletin of Information of University of Delhi for admission to Post Graduatedegree Courses for 1993 session. In this bulletin last date for admission was I July1993 and earlier the session commencing on 3/05/1993. Reference has been drawnby Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel for Delhi University, to a Full Bench decision ofthis Court in Dr. Sandhya Kabra \/. Union of India, (1992) 48 DLT 524 , wherein it hasbeen held that the admission should close and course commence on 2 May eachyear and further that if there was any mistake which had been committed, then thesame should be rectified within two months of the commencement of the course. University states that initially the petitioner was not offered any seat and wasplaced in the waiting list. It was also explained as to why in the year 1993 there wassome delay in filling up the seats in All India quota and a large number of scats weresought to be surrendered to States and the matter was again re-examined by thiscourt and ultimately the University was directed to hold Counselling of the waitlisted candidates on 23/10/1993 and to allot the unfilled seats. It is then statedthat pursuant to this direction the petitioner was directed to appear for Counsellingon 23/10/1993 and was asked to join the course by 26/10/1993. Thepetitioner, however, did not join and instead requested for extension of time forjoining the course. Time was granted upto 30/11/1993 to enable him tosubmit the relieving certificate from his employer. Still the petitioner failed tosubmit the requisite relieving certificate and did not join the course. He wasinformed by letter date 23/ 24/11/1993 that in case he failed to submit therelieving certificate from his employer to join the course within the stipulated date,his admission to M. D. (CHA) Course for the session 1993 would stand cancelled. Still the petitioner failed tosubmit the requisite relieving certificate and did not join the course. He wasinformed by letter date 23/ 24/11/1993 that in case he failed to submit therelieving certificate from his employer to join the course within the stipulated date,his admission to M. D. (CHA) Course for the session 1993 would stand cancelled. University says it is no fault of its that it has not been possible to allow the petitionerto join the M. D. (CHA) Course at this late stage when admission to post-graduatecourses for the session 1994 has already been in process and first year of 1993 coursealready completed. University states that rules and regulations have been adheredto and maximum extension has been granted to the petitioner upto 30/11/1993. University also points out that apart from the petitioner there are othersimilar cases of four or five candidates who also could not get admission due tonon-submission of relieving certificates from their respective employers and alsofor the reasons that training programme for the said courses had already beencompleted. University again asserts that first year of the course had been completed and the process for admission to 1994 session already started. In view of thestand taken by the Delhi University it appears difficult to us to direct it to admit thepetitioner at this late stage. Petitioner is seeking admission to a professional coursefor post-graduate studies and he has to be imparted proper knowledge for him toenable to treat the patients who would come under his charge. ( 4 ) MR. Swatantar Kumar referred to the Bulletin of Information for the 1993session and also to University Calendar and said that the petitioner could nevertheless be admitted. He said it was no fault of the petitioner that his employer did notgrant him the relieving certificate within the reasonable time and why should thepetitioner be allowed to suffer for that and his career marred. We have, no doubt,full sympathy with the petitioner, but we see no ground to bend the rules and allowthe petitioner to join M. D. (CHA) Course of 1993 session when one year is alreadyover and process for admission to 1994 session has already begun. Mr. We have, no doubt,full sympathy with the petitioner, but we see no ground to bend the rules and allowthe petitioner to join M. D. (CHA) Course of 1993 session when one year is alreadyover and process for admission to 1994 session has already begun. Mr. Swatantarkumar sought help from the following clauses XIII, XIV and XV of the Bulletin ofinformation to submit that attendance was not material and it was only for thesupervisor to certify that the candidate had pursued a regular full time course ofstudy and could take the examination (written and oral) :- "xiii. Lecture/demonstration Programme -Lecture/demonstration programmes for postgraduate degree students will be arranged by the University. The Principal of the College/medical Supdt/head of the Institution of therecognised Hospital and Supervisor concerned of the student will issue acertificate to the effect that the candidate has undergone the training programme including lectures, demonstration etc. to his/her entire satisfactionbefore the student is allowed to submit his/herthesis or take the writtenexamination. XIV. Examination:-Every candidate seeking admission to the examinationfor the degree Course must persue a regular full time course of study in therespective department of teaching institution/hospital in Delhi recognised bythe University of Delhi under the guidance of a Supervisor appointed by theboard of Research Studies for Medical Sciences. Provided that a student registered may be assigned by the Board to one morethan one recognised Institutions to work for a specific period as full-timestudent under the Supervisors) appointed by the Board. The examination for the Post-graduate degree course shall consist of twoparts viz. (i) Thesis; and (ii) Examination (written and oral) (i) Thesis: (a) The subject of thesis shall be approved by the Board of Research Studiesfor Medical Sciences on the recommendations of the Post-graduate Cellreceived through the Head of the Institution. (b) The candidates pursuing the degree courses will submit their thesis in partfulfilment of the MD/ MS Degree by the end of 2nd year of the course as afulltime regular studehtj under guidance of the Supervisors) appointed by theboard of Research Studies for Medical Sciences. They will be allowed tosubmit their thesis to the University only after they have paid the 3rdinstalment of the fees. Provided further that the Board may appoint Jointsupervisors in any particular case on the recommendation of Post-graduatecell of the College/hospital concerned. They will be allowed tosubmit their thesis to the University only after they have paid the 3rdinstalment of the fees. Provided further that the Board may appoint Jointsupervisors in any particular case on the recommendation of Post-graduatecell of the College/hospital concerned. Candidates admitted shall submitthree printed or typed copies of their thesis on any working day by the datenotified through their supervisors) and Head of the Institution. (ii) Examination (written and oral):-Candidate who has submitted his/her thesis may be allowd to persue a regular course of study for aperiod of not less than one calendar year thereafter but shall be allowedto take the examination only after acceptance of thesis. Provided that the candidate who required to resubmit his/her thesis underthe provision of the foregoing clause may be allowed to continue to persue theregular course of study and alloved to take the examination only afteracceptance of the resubmitted thesis. XV. Examination fees:-xx xx xxnote: (i) Students admitted to M. D. /m. S. /m. Sc. course should pass thedegree Examination within 5 years aftersubmission of thesis for thecourse. (ii) Students admitted to the M. Ch. and DM. Courses should pass theexamination within 5 years from the date of registration of the course. Mr. Kumar said if reference was drawn to the note, the course could becompleted within a period of five years after submission of thesis for thecourse. Relevant clauses from the University Calendar which were referredto are:8. Every candidate seeking admission to the examination for the Degreemust pursue a regular course of study from the date of commencement of thecourse concerned in the respective Departments of a Medical College/recognised Hospital in Delhi as a whole-time student under the guidance ofa Supervisor appointed by the Board of Research Studies for Medical Sciences. Provided that a student registered may be assigned by the Board to one ormore than one recognised institutions to work fora specific period as a whole-time student under the Supervisors) appointed by the Board. Confirmation of Admission .-The admission of the candidate shall be provisional in the first instance. The Supervisor, after 4 months of the commencement of the course, but notlater than 6 months of the said commencement, shall submit through thehead of the Institution, a report to the Board of Research Studies for Medicalsciences regarding the performance of the candidate. Confirmation of Admission .-The admission of the candidate shall be provisional in the first instance. The Supervisor, after 4 months of the commencement of the course, but notlater than 6 months of the said commencement, shall submit through thehead of the Institution, a report to the Board of Research Studies for Medicalsciences regarding the performance of the candidate. If the performance isstated to be satisfactory and such other information as is required by thefaculty Office is supplied by the candidate regarding his admission, hisprovisional admission shall be confirmed. If the performance is not foundsatisfactory the admission shall be cancelled and the candidate will beinformed about this within one month of the receipt of the report of thesupervisor. 9. The examination for the Degree of M. D. /m. S. /m. Sc. shall be held twice ayear ordinarily in March and September and shall consist of two parts viz. : (i) Thesis (ii) Examination (Written and Oral ). 10. Thesis:- (i) The subject of thesis shall be approved, on the recommendation of the Supervisor through the Head of the Institution, by theboard of Research Studies for Medical Sciences. (ii) A candidate shall not be entitled to submit his/her thesis unless he/shehas pursued his/her research for a period of not less than one yearfrom the date of commencement of the course concerned under theguidance of the Supervisors) appointed by the Board of Researchstudies for Medical Sciences. 14. Examination:-A candidate who has submitted his/her thesis may beallowed to pursue a regularcourse of study fora period of not less than twelvemonths thereafter but shall be allowed to take the examination in thecorresponding subjects after acceptance of thesis. Provided that a candidate who is required to resubmit his/her thesis underthe provision of the foregoing clause may be allowed to continue to pursue theregular course of study as herein mentioned and allowed to take the examination only after acceptance of the resubmitted thesis. 15. The examination shall be conducted by a Board of four examiners all ofwhom will be specialists in the subject concerned appointed by the Universityon the recommendations of the Committee of Courses and Studies and thefaculty of Medical Sciences. The number of internal examiners on the Board shall not be less than 50% ofthe total strength at any time. 16. 15. The examination shall be conducted by a Board of four examiners all ofwhom will be specialists in the subject concerned appointed by the Universityon the recommendations of the Committee of Courses and Studies and thefaculty of Medical Sciences. The number of internal examiners on the Board shall not be less than 50% ofthe total strength at any time. 16. (a) A student shall be permitted to appear at the Post-Graduate Degreeannual Examination of the University only when the Supervisor of thestudent and Head of the recognised Department/principal/head of therecognised Institution, certify to the effect that the student has undergone thetraining programme including lectures, demonstrations, etc. to their entiresatisfaction and is otherwise eligible to appear at the said examination. (b) Maternity Leave: As per University Ordinance VII Clause 2 Sub-Clause (9) (d)-A student, who has failed to pass/appear at the Annual Examination will beallowed to re-appear at the subsequent examination/s on his/her beingenrolled as an ex-student in accordance with the rules prescribed in thisbehalf and will not be required to submit a fresh thesis. A student who has failed to take the Annual Examination on the ground thathe/she has not undergone the training programme including lectures, demonstrations etc. to the satisfaction of theSupervisor of the student and thehead of the recognised Department/principal/head of the recognised Institution may be allowed to take the subsequent examination/s as a regularstudent provided the Supervisor of the student and the Head of the recognised Department/principal/head of the recognised Institution certifies to theeffect that the student has undergone the training programme includinglectures, demonstration etc. to their entire satisfaction and is otherwiseeligible to appear at the subsequent examination/s. 17. Marks shall not, ordinarily, be assigned to any part of the examination, butthe examiners will confer after completion of the examination and will reportwhether the student has Passed with Distinction , passed or failed . 18. Students admitted to any Post-graduate degree course should pass theexamination within five years afteer submitted of the thesis for the course. " ( 5 ) WE are unable to understand as to how these clauses in the Bulletin ofinformation and University Calendar would at all help the petitioner for him toseek admission at any time even after a period of two years. These apply when acandidate has been admitted as per the prescribed calendar for admissions. Mr. " ( 5 ) WE are unable to understand as to how these clauses in the Bulletin ofinformation and University Calendar would at all help the petitioner for him toseek admission at any time even after a period of two years. These apply when acandidate has been admitted as per the prescribed calendar for admissions. Mr. Mahajan also drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court referred toin the Full Bench decision in Dr. Sandhya Kabra s case and also to another decisionof the Supreme Court in Anand S. Biji v. State of Kerala, 1993 (3) SCC 80 . ( 6 ) WE would, therefore, reject the petition. This, however, docs not appear tous to conclude the matter for the petitioner. There has been a great deal of delaywhich, we find, is unexcusable in granting the petitioner extraordinary leave forhim to join M. D. (CHA) Course for session 1993 and his valuable right frustratedeven if we say his career not marred. We, therefore, refer to the replies of the Delhiadministration as well as the Union of India. ( 7 ) MR. Madan Lokur, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, submitted that, nodoubt, the petitioner applied for study leave on 27/12/1992 but it was onlyon 19/11/1993, almost a year after, that Delhi Administration wrote to thecadre Controlling Authority, i. e. , the Central Government, wherein it was statedthat the petitioner was to join M. D. (CHA) Course by 26/10/1993. This letterof Delhi Administration was received by the Cadre Controlling Authority on 22/11/1993. On 30/11/1993 the Cadre Controlling Authority informed the Delhi Administration that as per the rules the petitioner was not eligiblefor study leave and his application was, therefore, returned to the Delhi Administration. The petitioner, it appears, wrote a letter dated 6/12/1993 to thedelhi Administration asking for extraordinary leave. He endorsed a copy of thisletter to the Cadre Controlling Authority. On the basis of this copy the Cadrecontrolling Authority referred the matter to the Department of Personnel andtraining (DOPT) for opinion. The DOPT by letter dated 10/01/1994 informedthe Cadre Controlling Authority that the Ministry might consider the tease again asit involved relaxation of rules and submit the same to DOPT after approval of thefinancial Adviser (FA ). The case was then sent to the F. A. for recommendation torelax rules. On 24/01/1994, F. A. recommended the case to DOPT forrelaxation. The DOPT by letter dated 10/01/1994 informedthe Cadre Controlling Authority that the Ministry might consider the tease again asit involved relaxation of rules and submit the same to DOPT after approval of thefinancial Adviser (FA ). The case was then sent to the F. A. for recommendation torelax rules. On 24/01/1994, F. A. recommended the case to DOPT forrelaxation. The concurrence was given by DOPT on 8/02/1994 as a specialcase and accordingly letter dated II February, 1994 was written by the Cadrecontrolling Authority to the Delhi Administration. In this letter it was mentionedthat proposal for grant of extraordinary leave for a period of three years to thepetitioner for prosecuting Post Graduate Course in M. D. (CHA) under Universityof Delhi had been considered in the Ministry of Health in consultation with thedopt and the request of the petitioner was agreed to in relaxation of the rules asa special case. Mr. Lokur submitted that the Delhi Administration sat over the letterdated 27/12/1992 of the petitioner and forwarded the same only on 19/11/1993. When the Central Government by letter dated 30/11/1993asked the Delhi Administration to explain the delay and submit the matter, but tilldate nothing was stated. He also said that Delhi Administration did not forwardthe letter dated 6/12/1993 addressed by the petitioner to the Delhi Administration and it was only on the copy which had been endorsed to the Cadrecontrolling Authority that the Cadre Controlling Authority acted upon that andgranted the necessary permission relaxing the rules. Mr. Lokur also said that tilldate the letter dated 6/12/1993 of the petitioner addressed to the Delhi Administration had not so far been received by the Cadre Controlling Authority. Mr. Lokur criticised the affidvit of the Delhi Administration saying that the same wasnot correct. The affidavit of the Delhi Administration has been filed by Mr. R. S. Sethi, Secretary (Medical ). He said that the leave application dated 26/10/1993 Iof the petitioner was received in the office of Director (Health Services), Delhi Administration, on 28/10/1993 and with certain clarifications on 3/11/1993. This application was forwarded by the Joint Director (Health Services), Delhiadministration, on 10/11/1993 to the office of the Secretary (Medical),delhi Administration, for onward transmission to the Cadre Controlling Authority,i. e. , the Central Government in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. This application was forwarded by the Joint Director (Health Services), Delhiadministration, on 10/11/1993 to the office of the Secretary (Medical),delhi Administration, for onward transmission to the Cadre Controlling Authority,i. e. , the Central Government in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. However, before theapplication could be so forwarded it was necessary to getvigilance clearance of the petitioncr as per rules and this information was receivedon 17/11/1993. It is stated thereafter that the application of the petitionerwas forwarded to the Central Government on 19/11/1993. It will at onceappear that this affidavit does not explain as to why the application/letter dated 27/12/1992could beacted only on 19/11/1993. Even Mr. Sethi says thatthe request of the petitioner was rejected and rejection was received in his office on 2/12/1993. The affidavit is again silent as to when again the petitioerapproached the Delhi Administration. No reference has been made to the application dated 6/12/1993 of the petitioner which had been mentioned by Mr. Lokur during course of arguments. It will, therefore, appear to us that the officersof the Delhi Administration slept over the application of the petitioner all thisperiod without any reason causing irreparable loss and damage to the petitioner. In these circumstances, we propose to recompensate the petitioner by imposingheavy cost by way of damages on Delhi Administration and its officers. This costwe tentatively quantify at Rs. one lakh though it docs appear to us that this will bea poor consolation to the petitioner, but we cannot help otherwise. In ordering thiswe draw strength from the decision of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 SC = JT 1993 (6) S. C. 307. Before weimpose cost on the officers of the Delhi Administration who dealt with the file, werequire the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration, to produce in this Courtrelevant file and also file an affidavit giving names of all the officers who dealt withthe file at various stages till permission was finally granted to the petitioner.