Delhi High Court
Abhishek Saxena vs National Board Of Examination And ... on 7 February, 2020
$~36 to 41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 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
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.
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):
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
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,
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.
7.3. The third category [Category III] comprises those petitioners, who
have either appeared in the theory exam held in December 2019, or have
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 Remarks
Petitioner
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 Passed: theory
Davaranavadagi examination
10. I W.P. (C) 6993/2017 Bhosle Abhinav Passed: theory
Ramachandra examination
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
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 Passed: theory
Savanth examination
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 Joined another
Mrudubhashini course
Michael
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
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 Reappeared in
*None appeared on theory exam held
behalf of the in December 2019
petitioner.
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,
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
