The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a writ petition, challenging an order issued by National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), The court's decision, delivered on September 30, 2024 centered around the issue of territorial jurisdiction, raising questions around the doctrine of forum conveniens in legal proceedings. For the unversed, the doctorine of forum conveniens simply means a court or jurisdiction that is convenient to resolving a dispute.
In the instant case, the Petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 issued by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, headquartered in Delhi. The Petitioner, having been selected through the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Medical Services in 2017, was appointed as a Medical Officer on 27.12.2017 and posted at the Community Health Centre, Meerganj, Bareilly. She was later transferred to the Community Health Centre, Shergarh, Bareilly in 2023. The petitioner successfully cleared the NEET PG Examination 2023 and participated in the UP NEET PG (DNB) Counselling 2023, where she was allotted a seat for a Post-MBBS Diploma in Ophthalmology based on the MOP UP Allotment on 09.10.2023. Based on the recommendation from the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly dated 07.10.2023 and a signed contract, the petitioner was granted permission by the Office of the Director General of Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to pursue the course at Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow, subject to certain government orders. However, on 19.09.2024, respondent no. 2 (National Board of Examinations in Medical Science) issued a letter cancelling the petitioner’s admission to the NBEMS Diploma Course for the 2023 session, citing her delayed joining of the course. While the scheduled joining date was 12.10.2023, the petitioner actually joined on 06.03.2024, leading to a delay of approximately five months, which was the basis for the cancellation order.
In response to the same, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the writ petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as the core challenge pertains to the impugned order dated 19.09.2024, issued by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), an autonomous body functioning under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, located in Delhi. The counsel argued that the entire controversy and subsequent adverse actions stem solely from this impugned order, which was decided within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. As such, it is contended that the Writ Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to adjudicate upon the dispute. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Riddhima Singh v. CBSE and Sumit Kumar v. UOI, as well as the Co-ordinate Bench decision in H.S. Rai v. Union of India.
Countering the same, on behalf of the Respondent, the Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India vehemently argued and reiterated the objection concerning territorial jurisdiction. She sought to distinguish the instant case from the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The Senior Panel Counsel argued that, in the present case, consequential orders had been passed by authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court which is how the judgments as relied by the Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is solely distinguishable. She further pointed out that upon examination of the judgments as relied by the. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, in the said cases an integral part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, however, as per facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, the cause of action emanates from UP and not Delhi. It was further argued that, in the present case, the consequential orders in question were issued by authorities outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and since an integral part of the cause of action occurred beyond the Court's Jurisdiction, the. Senior Panel Counsel concluded that this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
The Singe Judge of the Delhi High Court, in its judgment, by citing various landmark judgments upon the doctrine of forum conveniens, reiterated that a writ petition cannot be entertained merely because a fraction of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court. The court emphasized the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens, which allows the court to determine the appropriate forum based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner had relied on the decision in H.S. Rai v. Union of India to support their argument; however, the court noted that in H.S. Rai, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court, in paragraphs 27 to 29 of that decision, discussed the scope of Article 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution of India, reaffirming the established legal position that the court has discretionary power to entertain a writ petition based on a fraction of the cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court clarified that the exercise of such discretion depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The court found that the decision in H.S. Rai did not assist the petitioner and upheld the settled position of law under Article 226, dismissing the writ petition in favor of the Union of India. The court observed that the essential and integral aspects of the cause of action-such as the petitioner’s admission, leave application, its acceptance, joining and leave letters, and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner’s candidature all occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with the judgment rendered in favor of the Union of India.
“However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court to seek appropriate remedy. All rights and contentions are left open”, the court said while declining to entertain the petition.
The respondent was represented by Anushkaa Arora, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India.
