Gujarat High Court
Jayani Dashrathbhai Patel vs National Board Of Examination In ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4107 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JAYANI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL
Versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE, MR. MEHUL A SHARMA(16314) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. G.M. Joshi, appearing
with learned Advocate, Mr. Sharma, for the petitioner and
learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties,
this matter is taken-up for hearing and final disposal, today.
Hence, RULE. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, waives service for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs;
""(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the
respondents to declare the petitioner as having passed the
theory exit examination of DrNB Super Specialty Clinical
Haematology January 2025 by rounding off the decimal
marks individually in each of the three papers, i.e., 44 in
Paper 1, 46 in Paper 2, and 54 in Paper 3, thereby making
the petitioner's total marks 144, and thereafter granting
grace marks of 2%, i.e., 6 marks, as per Clause 4.2 of the
Information Bulletin.
(B) Pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of the
present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the
practical examination of the exit examination of DrNB Super
Specialty Clinical Haematology January 2025.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other
and further orders as may be deemed just, proper and
necessary in the interest of justice."
4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, appearing with learned
Advocate, Mr. Sharma, for the petitioner submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
petitioner appeared in examination of Doctorate of National
Board (in brief, 'Dr.NB'), which is the highest super-specialty
course in the medical field and for which the number of seats
are not specified and the same shall depend on the number of
the successful candidates.
4.1 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, submitted that as per the
scheme of examination for Dr.NB course, a person is required
to appear in three different papers of 100 marks each and has
to secure, at least, 150 marks in aggregate. The present
petitioner appeared in exit examination for Dr.N.B. course
conducted on 19.01.2025 and as per the results of the said
exam declared on 07.03.2025, she has obtained 43.50 marks
in Paper-1, 45.50 marks in Paper-2 and 53.50 marks in Paper-
3, i.e. she has obtained total 142.5 marks and on rounding off,
it would come to 143 marks, out of total 300 marks.
4.2 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Respondents
have counted the marks obtained by her in each paper as it is
and thereafter, they have rounded off the aggregate total,
which would come to 143 marks, out of total 300 marks for
three papers. According to the petitioner, instead of counting
the total marks of all the three papers and then rounding off
the same, the Respondents ought to have rounded off the
marks obtained by her subject-wise or paper-wise, which would
have brought her closer to the minimum qualifying marks, i.e.
144 marks, as according to the petitioner, as per the guidelines
of the Respondents themselves, once a person secures 144
marks, then, he / she shall be granted 6 grace marks, i.e. 2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
grace marks for each subject and thereby, the concerned
person shall be able to cross the threshold and to qualify for
appearing in the practical examination.
Hence, the present petition.
5. When this matter came-up for hearing before this Court
on 02.04.2025, notice was issued and pursuant thereto,
learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, put-in appearance for the
Respondents. Though, due to paucity of time, the Respondents
could not file the reply in this matter, learned Advocate, Mr.
Shah, submitted that he has received necessary instructions
and therefore, prayed to proceed further with the matter.
5.1 According to learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, as per the
instructions received by him, there is no codified policy, for
rounding off the marks, formulated by Respondent No.1 and
such matters are governed by the minutes of the meeting of
the Governing Body of Respondent No.1. He submitted that the
last such meeting of the Governing Body was held on
22.02.2019 and the policy or the method prescribed therein is
being followed, till date.
5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, however, submitted that he
has no instructions, as to when the next such meeting of the
Governing Body shall take place and as to why there is no
separate policy or rules specifying the procedure or the mode
for rounding off the marks for Dr.N.B. course.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, appearing with learned
Advocate, Mr. Sharma, for the petitioner drew the attention of
this Court that the policy, which is said to have been in
existence by the learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, is in respect of
the Diploma of National Board, (referred to as 'DNB', herein
after) and not in respect of Dr.N.B.
6.1 Despite a specific query put-forward by this Court,
learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, submitted that there is no clarity,
as to whether, there are two separate polices for DNB and
Dr.N.B. and / or whether, there is a common policy for both the
courses or not.
6.2 According to learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, the course
of Dr.N.B. being higher and different, than, the course of DNB,
which is a diploma course, there has to be two different
policies or guidelines for both the courses.
6.2.1 However, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, submitted that for
want of instructions on this issue, he is neither in a position to
admit or controvert the aforesaid aspect, at this juncture and
he shall have to get the specific instructions in that regard.
7. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record. Ordinarily, this Court would not have
interfered with the process of examination of a super-specialty
course in the medical field, but, for the reason that in the
instant case, as submitted by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi,
that only 65 candidates could qualify for the aforesaid course
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
and out of them, there are only two candidates from the State
of Gujarat. Here, it is required to be noted that the petitioner is
not facing any kind of accusations of any malpractice or
otherwise. It may be noted that the rules also provide that, if, a
person secures 144 marks in aggregate, then, he / she shall be
granted 2 grace marks in each subjects, i.e. total 6 grace
marks for three subjects, which would take the marks obtained
by such a person to 150 marks and shall make the concerned
person eligible to appear in the practical examination.
7.1 This Court is conscious that the practical examination is
scheduled on 07.04.2025, but, due to paucity of time and due
to lack of the necessary instructions, i.e. there not being a
clear stand on the part of the Respondents that whether the
policy or guidelines for rounding off the marks for Dr.N.B. and
DNB courses are separate or there are two different policies,
there is an urgent need to pass some orders.
7.1.1 At this stage, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, under
the instructions, submitted that even if, the petitioner is
permitted to appear in the practical examination, she shall not
claim any equity on the basis of the same and her fate would
depend on the final outcome of this petition and the marks
that may be secured by her in her practical examination.
7.1.2 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, again submitted
that the Respondents could have rounded off the marks of the
petitioner, as the petitioner has secured 43.50 marks in Paper-
1, 45.50 marks in Paper-2 and 53.50 marks in Paper-3 , i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
she has obtained total 142.5 marks and after rounding off it
comes to 143 marks, out of total 300 marks, especially, when
there is no allegation of any malpractice against the present
petitioner. It was, further, submitted that the rules are required
to be interpreted in a manner, which may benefit a person,
who is pursuing the super-specialty course in the medical field,
i.e. Dr.N.B., which is higher than the course of DNB. Thereby, it
was prayed that this petition be allowed.
8. While this Court was in the process of dictating the order
for grant of interim relief, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah,
submitted that, as per the latest instructions received by him,
the guidelines for Dr.N.B. course and DNB course are the one
and the same, so far as the rounding off the marks is
concerned, which is based on the decision taken by the
Governing Body of Respondent No.1 in its meeting held on
22.02.2019 and that is how the said policy or the method of
rounding off the marks is being followed, till date. It was also
submitted that, in the case on hand, there is no exceptional
reason, except, for the fact that the petitioner has to lose one
year of her studies and therefore, only on that ground, this
Court may not interfere with the practice of rounding off the
marks, which is being followed since 2019.
8.1 At this juncture, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi,
reiterated that the policy / guidelines being pointed out by
learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, is applicable for DNB course and
not for Dr.N.B. course, which is higher course, as the former is
only a diploma course.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
8.1.1 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, under the
instruction, also submitted that, in fact, there was no course of
Dr.N.B. in the year 2019 and the same was introduced in the
year 2020 only and therefore, the guidelines of 2019, which
are essentially in respect of DNB Course, cannot be said to be
guidelines for Dr.N.B. Course and the same shall not apply in
the case on hand. It was, further, submitted that the
examination policy of 2025 is also totally silent on the aspect
of rounding off marks and therefore, the guidelines or the
policy, which is applicable for rounding off marks for DNB
course, cannot be applied for rounding off marks for Dr.N.B.
Course.
8.1.2 In response to the aforesaid submission made by
learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah,
submitted that the same is not supported by any documentary
evidence and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the
results declared by Respondent No.1.
9. It is under the aforesaid background that the present
matter was taken-up for final hearing and disposal, today.
10. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have also perused the material on record and I find that there
is no straight-jacket rule or formula adopted by the
Respondents for conducting the examination for Dr.N.B.
Course. Even, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, also fairly conceded
that there is no specific rule governing the examination for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Dr.N.B. course. In fact, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, submitted
that whenever some confusion arises, the Governing Body of
Respondent No.1 holds meeting and then, the minutes of the
meeting are drawn and followed. It has also come on record
that in respect of policy or method of rounding off the marks,
the last meeting was held on 22.02.2019 and the policy or the
method adopted in the said meeting for rounding off the marks
is being followed, till date.
10.1 In the instant case, the entire controversy revolves
around the question, as to whether, the Respondents ought to
have, firstly, rounded off the marks obtained by the petitioner
in each subject and then, ought to have granted subject-wise
grace marks to the petitioner or whether, they are justified in
rounding off the aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner in
all the three subject or not.
10.1.1 As stated herein above, in absence of any specific
policy or method for rounding off the marks for the course of
Dr.N.B., this Court shall have to take into consideration the
consistent practice, which is being followed by the
Respondents, since the last meeting of the Governing Body,
which was held on 22.02.2019.
10.2 In the instant case, when learned Advocate, Mr.
Shah, under the instructions, has clearly stated, while the
dictation of this order was going on, that the policy or the
method for rounding off the marks followed in DNB course shall
apply in the case of Dr.N.B. course, as well, there is no reason
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4107/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
for this Court to interfere with the policy or the method, which
is consistently adopted or followed by the Respondents.
10.3 Even otherwise, the petitioner, herein, is claiming
double indemnity, i.e. she is seeking a direction that the
Respondents be directed to round off her marks subject-wise
and thereafter, they may be directed to again grant her 2
grace marks for each subject, i.e. total 6 grace marks, which
appears to be clearly misplaced, especially, when the
Respondents have been consistently following the practice of
rounding off the aggregate marks. Under the circumstances,
the Respondents cannot be directed to deviate from the
practice, which is being followed by them and which is in
consonance with the decision of the Governing Body taken in
the meeting dated 22.02.2019.
9. In the result, this petition fails and the same is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd./-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
UMESH/-
