Jayant Nath JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the relief granted to the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2016 of the learned Single Judge.
2. The appellant completed her MBBS from Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi affiliated to the respondent-Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha, University. She was issued a Provisional Certificate on 01.07.2015. She is permanent resident of Bareilly, U.P. and belongs to Jat Caste which falls under Other Backward Class (in short 'OBC'). She has a Caste Certificate from the State Government of U.P. She got admission in MBBS course under OBC category.
3. The respondent invited applications for Common Admission Test to the Post Graduate Medical Course (in short 'PGMC') in January, 2016. As per the procedure, reservations were applicable to these seats as per policy of University as applicable from time to time for Schedule Castes (SC)/Schedule Tribes (ST) and OBC candidates. It is the contention of the appellant that she was eligible for applying under the OBC quota.
4. In the Entrance Examination held on 12.03.2016, the appellant qualified and secured a rank of 103 in the overall merit list published on 14.03.2016. In OBC category, it is stated that the appellant secured 17th rank. Her preference was for Dermatology or Ophthalmology.
5. The counselling was to start from 09.04.2016. It is averred that to the utter shock and surprise of the appellant, the respondent on 07.04.2016 issued a Notification in the evening. Under the reservation policy then prevailing, persons having a caste certificate from outside Delhi were also considered OBC candidates for the purpose of availing the benefits of reserved category. However, as per the impugned Notification, it was directed that only those students who have caste certificates issued by Delhi Government were eligible to apply under the OBC category. This Notification was issued much after start of the admission process for PGMC for the Academic Session 2016-17, just before the counselling was about to begin.
6. In the counselling that took place on 12.04.2016, the respondent did not allow the appellant to appear as an OBC candidate. The appellant was granted permission to appear only as a General Category candidate in the counselling. Hence, as a consequence of the exclusion of the appellant, lesser meritorious OBC candidates than her got admission.
7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment noted with approval the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that 'the rules of the game have been changed after the game had begun'. The impugned judgment further noted that the impugned Notification issued by the respondent on 07.04.2016 was at a variance with its policy which was there for the Academic Session 2015-2016. It was held that there were no grounds for the respondent- University to change its policy, after the process of admissions had begun. Hence, the order concluded that the appellant had been wrongly excluded from the OBC Category while filling up seats for PGMC. The court, however, held that as the impugned Notification was issued on 07.04.2016 and the appellant filed the writ petition on 25.04.2016, she cannot get relief setting aside the admission granted to other OBC candidates who have been selected in the first round of counselling especially as the selected candidates were not party before this court. The court, however, directed that in future counselling for the present academic year reservation for OBC candidates for PGMC would take place without giving effect to the Notification dated 07.04.2016.
8. By the present appeal the appellants sought allotment of the seat she would have been all........