Anil Solanki v. National Board of Examinations & Ors

ORDER %

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 examinationconductedby respondentno.l is Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. valid for admission against All India Quota, State Quota as well as Institution Quota. The petitionersapplied under the Categoryof OBC candidatesand were issued admission tickets accordingly. However, in the result declared by respondent no.l, their names appear as unreserved category candidates. This, accordingto the learned counsel for the respondentno.l, was done because the categoiy to which the petitionersbelong does not fmd inclusion in the list of OBCs notified by Central Government. The learned counsel appearing for the respondentno.l statesthatit isonly for the purposeofadmissionagainstAll India Quota that the petitioners are being treated as candidates from the general categor>'.For admissionagainstState Quota, the petitionerswouldstill 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 IndraprasthaUniversitystatesthat for admissionagainstthe 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 petitionersagainst the seats in State Quota, they would considerthem as OBC candidatesin case theybelongsto a categoryincludedin the list of OBCs notified by Govt. ofNCT ofDelhiand subjectto necessaiyverificationinthis regard. The learned counsel for the respondentno.2 states that necessary verificationwill be caiTiedout at the time of counselling as per the practice of respondent no.2. In view of the statementsmade by the learned counselfor 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

\ $-40,41,45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4168/2013 NAVEEN SUHAG Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advs. versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS Respondent Through: Dr. RakeshGosain, Adv. for NBE + W.P.(C) 4169/2013 RUCHIHOODA .....Petitioner Tln-ough: Mr. KirtiUppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil Kumar, Advs. versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION MEDICAL ENCLAVE & ORS Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for NBE + W.P.(C) 4174/2013 ANIL SOLANKI Petitioner Through: Mr. KirtiUppal, Sr. Adv. withMr. Sunil Kumar, Advs. versus NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS & ORS Respondent Through: Dr. RakeshGosain, Adv. forNBE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN