Delhi High Court Says Integrity Of High-Stakes Exams Is Shared Responsibility Of Candidates, Authorities

A Doctor's Fellowship in Jeopardy

The Delhi High Court has ruled that both candidates and examining bodies must share the burden of maintaining the integrity of high-stakes medical examinations. The Court dismissed a petition by Dr. Sanchari Ghosh challenging the cancellation of her FNB Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), while simultaneously imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on NBEMS for its failure to detect eligibility discrepancies earlier. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that neither side can take the system for granted.

When a Cut-Off Date Becomes Crucial

Dr. Ghosh, an MD in Medicine, underwent DrNB Cardiology training at Medica Super specialty Hospital, Kolkata, but her final examination was held only in January 2025, and her provisional pass certificate was issued on May 29, 2025. Under the FET-2024 Information Bulletin, candidates were required to possess or be likely to possess the requisite postgraduate qualification by December 31, 2024. Despite not meeting this cut-off, Dr. Ghosh applied, secured Rank 14, was allotted a seat at Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bengaluru, in August 2025, and underwent nine months of training before NBEMS discovered the discrepancy and cancelled her candidature in May 2026.

Arguments from Both Sides

Dr. Ghosh's counsel, Mr. Shivendra Singh, argued that COVID-19 delays prevented her from completing the DrNB on time, and she had not concealed any information—she listed the cut-off date as her passing year because she believed she would finish by then. He contended that NBEMS, having verified her documents and allowed her to join, could not later cancel her admission on a technicality. He also noted that 12 of 15 seats remained vacant, suggesting no prejudice to other candidates.

NBEMS, represented by Mr. Waize Ali Noor, countered that Dr. Ghosh had misrepresented her eligibility on three separate occasions: in her FET application, during online registration (OPJR), and in her self-appraisal affirmations. The Board maintained that the cut-off date was uniformly applied and the petitioner could not claim equitable relief after making false declarations.

Misrepresentation Found on Multiple Occasions

Justice Singh examined the record and observed that Dr. Ghosh had entered "31.12.2024" as her passing date despite knowing her actual timeline. "On no fewer than three occasions, the petitioner misrepresented that she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria as on 31.12.2024," the judgment noted. The Court rejected the argument that the matter was merely one of delayed timing, stating that a cut-off date defines the class of eligible candidates and cannot be diluted. "If the petitioner's argument were accepted, the prescribed cut-off would cease to have any real meaning," the Court observed.

No Vested Right from Provisional Admission

The Court emphasized that a provisional seat allotment does not create a vested right . The FET-2024 rules explicitly allowed cancellation at any stage if ineligibility was detected. "The mere passage of several months...cannot operate as an estoppel against NBEMS or create a right in favour of the petitioner," the judgment held.

A Shared Responsibility: Court's Observations

At the same time, Justice Singh strongly criticized NBEMS for failing to detect the discrepancy earlier. Noting that Dr. Ghosh had disclosed she joined the three-year DrNB course on April 16, 2022 , the Court said NBEMS should have realized she could not complete it by December 31, 2024 . "Such lethargy and callousness...cannot be countenanced," the judgment read. "The responsibility of an institution entrusted with the academic future of thousands of candidates cannot end with prescribing rules; those rules must also be effectively implemented."

Costs Imposed as a Measure of Accountability

The Court imposed a cost of ₹1,000 on the petitioner (a token amount) and ₹10,000 on NBEMS, with the latter intended as a measure of institutional accountability. The costs were directed to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • "Neither can the candidates take the system for granted, nor can the system take the candidates for granted."
  • "A cut-off date will, by its very nature, include some candidates and exclude others."
  • "If the petitioner’s argument were accepted, the prescribed cut-off would cease to have any real meaning."
  • "Merit loses its meaning if the process through which it is determined is compromised."

Final Decision and Implications

The petition was dismissed, upholding NBEMS' cancellation of Dr. Ghosh's fellowship. The ruling clarifies that misrepresentation of eligibility, even if unintentional, can lead to cancellation, and courts will not come to the aid of those who lack candour. At the same time, the imposition of costs on NBEMS sends a clear message that examining bodies must exercise greater diligence in verifying applicants' claims before granting admissions, especially when the careers of medical professionals are at stake.