Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Dr. Akant Pandey - Appellant
Versus
National Board Of Examinations & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 11213 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 34519 of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2021
The examining authority's actions must show manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness for the writ court to intervene in academic matters.
Headnote:
DNB Examination - Maximum Attempts - Information Bulletin - [Clause 4 of Notification dated 12.06.2020]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, sought permission to participate in the practical examination for the Diplomate of National Board (DNB) after exhausting the maximum three attempts. The court considered the petitioner's representation and subsequent writ petition challenging the rejection of the representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner abandoned the right to institute a fresh writ petition for the same relief after withdrawing the earlier petition. The court also found the petitioner's case unmerited on the grounds that the examining authority's actions were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Issues: The issues involved the maximum number of attempts for the practical component of the DNB examination and the petitioner's request for additional attempts based on a change in the examination pattern.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's participation in the examination knowing the maximum attempts allowed and the option to opt out of the revised examination scheme precluded him from seeking further attempts. The court also emphasized the limited role of the writ court in academic matters, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Final Decision: The writ petition and pending application were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioner is a doctor. He enrolled for the Diplomate of National Board ["DNB"] examination and has cleared the theory component of the said examination. The grievance with which he has approached the Court concerns the maximum number of attempts available for clearing the practical component of the DNB.
2. The undisputed position is that, in terms of the Information Bulletin issued for the DNB Final examination from time to time, a candidate is given maximum of three attempts to clear the practical examination. The petitioner availed of those three attempts in the June 2019 session, December 2019 session and December 2020 session. However, he was unable to score the minimum pass marks of 150/300. The respondent no.1-National Board of Examinations ["NBE"] has, therefore, taken the position that he cannot be granted any further attempts.
3. The petitioner first approached this Court with regard to this grievance in W.P.(C) 9748/2021. The reliefs sought in W.P.(C) 9748/2021 were as follows:-
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to permit the Petitioner to participate in the upcoming practical examination likely to be held in October, 2021;
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to provide copies of answer sheets of the Petitioner in respect of examination held in 03.07.2021 while also directing the Respondents to consider Petitioners request for re-checking and/or re-evaluation of Petitioners examination papers;
c) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing or setting aside the rule/order/circular/notification dated 22.06.2020 inter alia imposing limit of three attempts in practical examination being arbitrary, unconstitutional and without any legal basis, especially after change in pattern and also considering the prevailing coronavirus situation;
d) any other or further relief, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, in the interest of justice."
4. By an order dated 07.09.2021, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with the following observations:-
"1. The present petition has been filed by a doctor who is a candidate for the D.N.B. (Diplomate of National Board) in Family Medicine. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents, permitting him to participate in the practical examination schedule to be held in October, 2021.
2. After some hearing, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally, but with liberty to pursue his representation dated 30.08.2021 with the respondents.
3. Mr. Yadav submits that the petitioner is conscious of the fact that he has taken the practical examination three times, which is the maximum permitted under the relevant circular of the respondent no.1/National Board of Examinations ["NBE"], and he only seeks sympathetic exercise of the respondents discretion on the grounds stated in his representation dated 30.08.2021. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel who appears for the NBE on advance notice, states that the representation will be decided within a week.
4. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. The respondents will however decide the petitioners representation in their own discretion and communicate their decision to the petitioner within one week." Emphasis supplied.
5. The petitioners representation dated 30.08.2021 was for essentially the same relief: -
"Therefore, it is my humble request that I must be given one more opportunity to participate in practical examination coming up in October 2021 and also pr
