HC raps MD aspirant for filing vexatious petition; imposes fine
Filing a petition proved to be a costly affair for an MD course aspirant of Post Graduate institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER). The Punjab and Haryana high court not only dismissed her petition as “vexatious” but also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on her as litigation cost.chandigarh Updated: Nov 16, 2014 14:47 IST
Filing a petition proved to be a costly affair for an MD course aspirant of Post Graduate institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER).
The Punjab and Haryana high court not only dismissed her petition as “vexatious” but also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on her as litigation cost.
The petitioner, Divya P Wangoo, who had initially engaged a lawyer but later appeared in person, had challenged the method of calculating percentile for finalising merit lists for PGMIER’s entrance exam for MD course conducted earlier this year.
When Wangoo could not qualify in the examination, she moved court in June this year.
She had also approached the high court last year over the same issue.
The single bench of justice K Kannan held that the case was a product of a confused mind “with suspicion about every scientific calculation made”.
Rapping the petitioner for wasting her time on filing such petitions, justice Kannan said, “If the time taken by her in court and with all the several reams of papers of calculations made had been deployed in understanding the concept by proper reference to text books, she would not have filed this petition.”
A total of 5,191 candidates had taken the MD course examination.
The petitioner was not called for counselling as secured less than 50th percentile score required for admission: the petition stated that she had secured 10.34 percentile.
While petitioner was even asked if she had any objection to the way her answers were appraised and if she wanted to see her answer book, she continued to challenge the method to derive percentile.
“The court cannot be engaged in explaining scientific concepts. It is not in the court’s realm of activity,” said the court, adding that the only deterrent to such vexatious petitions was a penalty charge.