Abhishek Saxena v. National Board of Examination and Anr

Delhi High Court · 07 Feb 2020 · 2020:DHC:910
Rajiv Shakdher
W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected
2020:DHC:910
administrative appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed relaxation of eligibility criteria for DNB admissions where university result declaration was delayed beyond the cut-off date through no fault of candidates, directing the NBE to declare results and award degrees accordingly.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.02.2020
W.P.(C) 6993/2017
ABHISHEK SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Latika Choudhury, Adv.
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
W.P.(C) 7449/2017
VAIBHAB SHARMA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Latika Choudhury, Adv.
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION .... Respondent
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
W.P.(C) 7591/2017
KUSHAL PANDYA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Latika Choudhury, Adv.
VERSUS
2020:DHC:910
W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
W.P.(C) 7751/2017
YASH KATARIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv.
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
W.P.(C) 8187/2017
DR. T. BANIJKANTA SINGHA ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
W.P.(C) 2244/2018
DR. LISSA THOMAS AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Ms. Latika Choudhury, Adv. 2020:DHC:910
W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected
VERSUS
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Kiritman Singh with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NBE.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
JUDGMENT

1. A common issue arises for consideration in the captioned writ petitions. The issue being the applicability of Clause 3.[1] contained in the Information Bulletin related to July 2017 academic session, concerning the Diplomate of National Board Post Diploma Centralized Entrance Test [hereinafter referred to as “Entrance Exam”]. The said clause reads as follows.

“3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DNB-PDCET – JULY 2017 ADMISSION SESSION 3.1 Candidates who have passed the final examination leading to the award of Post Graduate Diploma from Indian Universities which are duly recognized as per provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Govt of India i.e. have passed/Passing the final examinations for Post graduate diploma on or before 30th June, 2017 can apply for the Post diploma CET examination in the same Broad specialty. Candidate should have completed his/her 2 years of post diploma training by 30th June, 2017.”

1.1. As would be evident upon perusal of Clause 3.[1] extracted hereinabove, only those candidates were eligible for DNB courses, who had 2020:DHC:910 W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected passed the final examination of their respective postgraduate courses on or before on 30.06.2017, albeit, from an Indian University recognised under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and cleared the Entrance Exam.

2. In other words, the candidates who were interested in applying for the DNB courses should have their results declared and, thus, passed the postgraduate diploma course, which was the stipulated basic qualification, on or before the stipulated cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2017.

3. In the captioned writ petitions, the case set up by each of the petitioners before the Court was, that although, they had completed their two years postgraduate diploma course and taken the final examination, for one reason or the other, their result was not declared by the concerned University.

3.1. Furthermore, in anticipation that their results would be declared before the stipulated cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2017, they sat for the entrance exam to gain admission to the DNB courses offered by the National Board of Examinations [hereinafter referred to as “NBE”].

3.2. What is not in dispute is that each of the petitioners had qualified the Entrance Exam and were otherwise eligible to be admitted to the DNB courses, save and except, for the fact that the results of their postgraduate diploma courses had not been declared by the concerned university before the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2017.

4. It is in this backdrop that each of the petitioners approached this court by way of the captioned writ petitions and pursuant to interim orders passed by the Court were allowed to participate, in the first instance, in the counselling scheduled for gaining admission to DNB courses and, thereafter, W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected provisionally admitted to the concerned course and allowed to take the examinations conducted by the NBE qua the same.

5. Consequently, majority of the petitioners have taken their final examinations qua the DNB course to which they have been provisionally admitted. These results, however, have been withheld by the NBE due to the pendency of the captioned matters.

6. The NBE has furnished the details pertaining to each of the petitioners who are arrayed as parties in the captioned petitions concerning their results qua the final theory examination as well as the practical examination.

6.1. It would be relevant to point out that a miniscule number of petitioners during the pendency of the captioned matters, as intimated by the learned counsel for the parties, have opted for “other courses” and, therefore, their plea before the Court has been rendered infructuous.

6.2. Likewise, a small number of petitioners, having failed in their theory exam, which was held in June 2019, have reappeared qua the same in December 2019; the result(s) of which are awaited. Consequently, these candidates can only sit, if at all, for the practical exam in May 2020.

7. Therefore, in a nutshell, the petitioners in the captioned matters can be divided into three categories.

7.1. The first category [Category I] comprises those petitioners, who have passed their theory exam held in June 2019.

7.2. The second category [Category II] comprises those petitioners, who have taken admission in other courses and, therefore, qua them, the captioned petitions have been rendered infructuous.

10,049 characters total

7.3. The third category [Category III] comprises those petitioners, who have either appeared in the theory exam held in December 2019, or have W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected failed in the theory exam held in June 2019 and have, thereafter, reappeared in the theory exam held in December 2019 and, thus, await the results qua the same. These are the candidates who will appear for their practical exam, if at all, in May 2020.

8. The granular details of each of these petitioners are set out in a tabular form below.

S. No. Category Writ Petition Name of the

1. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Abhishek Saxena Passed: theory examination

2. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Venkatesh Passed: theory examination

3. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Deepanshu Agarwal Passed: theory examination

4. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Rashmi G Passed: theory examination

5. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Vinayak Rajshekhar Passed: theory examination

6. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 S Shyam Passed: theory examination

7. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Shweta Patel Passed: theory examination

8. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Kripa S Passed: theory examination

9. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Ranganatha A Davaranavadagi Passed: theory examination

10. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Bhosle Abhinav Ramachandra

11. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Deepika MP Passed: theory examination

12. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Varna V Shet Passed: theory examination

13. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Deepak Shee B Passed: theory examination

14. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Preeti Singh Passed: theory W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected examination

15. I W.P. (C) 7449/2017 Devika Bhattacharya Passed: theory examination

16. I W.P. (C) 7591/2017 Kaushal Pandya Passed: theory examination

17. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Yash Kataria Passed: theory examination

18. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Apporva N Passed: theory examination

19. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Priyanka Tiwari Passed: theory examination

20. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Raghavenda S Savanth

21. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Devika Lawande Passed: theory examination

22. I W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Ayesha Mariam Passed: theory examination

23. II W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Nithya P Joined another course

24. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Megha Neeralagi Joined another course

25. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Lavanya K Joined another course

26. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Vinaya P Joined another course

27. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Sandhya S Patil Joined another course

28. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Snehalata P Joined another course

29. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Manohar S Joined another course

30. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Sunil Joined another course

31. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Monica Mrudubhashini Michael Joined another course

32. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Navedita Sarkar Joined another course

33. II W.P. (C) 7751/2017 Pradeep Kumar Joined another course

34. II W.P. (C) 2244/2018 Lisa Jane Thomas Joined another W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected course

35. III W.P. (C) 7449/2017 Vaibhav Sharma Appeared in theory exam held in December 2019

36. III W.P. (C) 2244/2018 Ramya Raj Appeared in theory exam held in December 2019

37. III W.P. (C) 2244/2018 Vidya Bahuleyan Reappeared in theory exam held in December 2019

38. III W.P. (C) 8187/2018 Banijkanta Singha *None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Reappeared in theory exam held in December 2019

9. As would be evident, much water has flown since the writ petitions were entertained by this Court. These petitioners have reached the end of their journey, so to speak.

9.1. The only impediment in the petitioners being formally admitted to their DNB course is the delayed declaration of their postgraduate diploma course by the concerned university, over which, they unarguably had no control.

10. While it was the stand of the NBE before me that the rigour of eligibility criteria contained in Clause 3.[1] could not be relaxed, looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would do more harm, both to the petitioners and the society at large, having regard to the time and money invested by them, if one were to deprive the petitioners the just fruits of their labour.

10.1. Undoubtedly, the seats, which were provisionally allotted to the petitioners, cannot be allocated to anyone else. Dismissing the writ petitions, W.P. (C) 6993/2017 & Connected at this stage, would result in incalculable loss to the society at large if not the petitioners.

11. Therefore, the NBE is directed to declare the results of the practical exam concerning those petitioners who fall in Category I. In case, they were to be declared pass in the practical exam, the NBE would take the necessary consequential steps of awarding degree-certificates qua their respective DNB course, subject to the fulfilment of necessary formalities.

11.1. Insofar as the petitioners falling in Category II are concerned, no further directions are required to be issued as their pleas before the Court have been rendered infructuous.

11.2. As regards the petitioners falling in Category III, the NBE is directed to declare the results concerning the theory exam and, in case, they were to pass the same, they would be allowed to take the practical exam which is slated to be held in May 2020. Upon those petitioners passing the theory and the practical examinations, the NBE would take necessary consequential steps of awarding degree-certificates qua their respective DNB course, as is directed to be done qua the petitioners falling under Category I.

12. Needless to emphasize, this order has been passed in the circumstances which are sui generis and, therefore, will not be cited as a precedent.

13. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 07, 2020