Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Joynarayan Bhoj vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 September, 2024
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
WPA 15995 of 2024
Dr. Joynarayan Bhoj
versus
The Union of India and others
For the petitioner Mr. Pappu Adhikari
For the Union of India Mr. Imran Siddique
Mr. Priyankar Ganguly
For the NBEMS Mr. Debu Chowdhury
For the respondent No.4 Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
Last Heard on 04.09.2024
Judgment on 04.09.2024
JAY SENGUPTA, J:
This is an application challenging a decision of the
respondent authorities, especially the respondent Nos.2 and 3,
purportedly taken on 18.06.2024 along with e-mail dated
19.06.2024 to debar the petitioner from NEET PG 2024
Examination and for issuance of admit card for the said
examination.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits as follows. The petitioner had passed MBBS from a
foreign university. He also cleared FMGE in 2023. However,
after taking the FMGE examination and before its result could
be published, he had applied for sitting at the NEET PG 2023
Examination. As he was quite sure that he would pass such
examination, he had inadvertently written in the form that he
had passed the FMGE Examination. A date for editing the
application was provided and the same was 03.02.2023. On
that date itself the petitioner actually passed the FMGE
Examination. Therefore, there was no reason to edit the form
and effectively, the statement made in the form was not an
incorrect one. In spite of this, the respondent Nos.2 and 3, by
email dated 19.06.2023, debarred the petitioner from appearing
in the examination for that year. In the said e-mail it was never
stated that he was being debarred from sitting in the
examination for two years. After applying for this year's
examination, the petitioner was informed that he allegedly had
been debarred for two years. In any event, the respondent
authorities are not even relying on an order to that effect. At
best they are referring to a noting in their records in lieu of such
decision. This cannot be treated as an order. On this, reliance
is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported at
(2009) 15 SCC 705 and (2018) 8 SCC 215.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 denies the
allegations made in the writ petition and submits that a decision
had been taken to debar the petitioner from sitting in the said
examination for two years and not for a year. The respondent
authorities are within their rights to take such decision. There is
no fault in the decision making process.
Learned counsel for the NBEMS submits that in 2023 the
petitioner was ineligible to sit for the examination not only
because of any misstatement that he might have made in the
application form, but also because he was not registered with
the State Medical Council or the National Medical Council.
However, at present he has purportedly taken such registration.
The Union of India is represented.
I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have perused the writ petition, the affidavits and the written
notes of submissions.
In the course of hearing of this matter, this Court, as an
interim measure, permitted the petitioner to sit in the
examination. But, the result was directed not to be published
without the leave of this Court.
First, the petitioner must be said to have been at fault in
filling up the application by stating that he had passed the
FMGE Examination although by that time he had only sat in the
examination. Whether this is a mere manifestation of his
overconfidence is quite irrelevant.
However, a last date being 03.02.2023 was purportedly
provided for editing the application and the petitioner actually
passed the FMGE Examination by then. As on such date, the
statement contained in the application was not incorrect.
Therefore, he cannot be penalised for making any false
statement.
The other requirement of getting registration with the
Medical Council of the State or the Centre was purportedly not
satisfied, at least, for the year 2023. Subsequently, the
petitioner took registration with the State Medical Council.
Therefore, the petitioner is quite eligible to appear for the NEET
PG 2024 Examination.
Regardless of whether the decision purportedly taken by
the respondent authorities to debar the petitioner from sitting in
the examination for certain number of years amounts to an
"order" or not, the same was not communicated to the petitioner
for all this long. What was initially communicated to the
petitioner was merely that he had been debarred from sitting in
the examination for one year i.e., 2023. Such a casual
approach of the respondent authorities cannot be accepted,
especially when it seeks to take away a valuable year from the
professional life of the petitioner.
Even otherwise, as discussed earlier, it appears that the
petitioner actually did not make a false statement in the
application form because on the date the application became
ready for consideration, he had cleared FMGE. The only bar
that had remained for him to sit for the examination was that he
was not registered with a medical council exists no more.
In view of the above discussions, I set aside the impugned
order of the respondent authorities debarring the petitioner from
sitting in the NEET PG Examination for two years. Since the
petitioner already sat in the examination for 2024, the
respondent authorities shall publish the result forthwith and if
the petitioner qualifies, he will be eligible for taking part in the
counselling process. The respondent authorities shall take
immediate steps in this regard.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be
supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
2/SG
