The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the approved extension period and highlighted the unjustifiability of withholding the result based solely on the cut-off date for completion of training.

JUDGMENT :

[Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.]

1. The petitioner, vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the impugned letter dated 02.09.2019 issued by the respondent-National Board of Examinations (NBE), whereby, the appearance of the petitioner in the Diplomate of National Board (DNB) Examination, December 2018 has been considered to be null and void and accordingly, the already declared result of the petitioner in the said examination has been disapproved.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner after completing her MBBS course, qualified in the DNB Centralised Entrance Test (DNB-CET) and accordingly, was admitted into the said course. The petitioner admittedly commenced her DNB training on 24.06.2016. According to the Information Bulletin for DNB Final Examination, 2018, the concerned programme was for three years followed by the final examination comprising of both theory and practical. The candidates undergoing the programme in question can be granted an extension of more than two months beyond the scheduled completion date of training.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted 32 days of extension by the competent authority and the extension so granted, is not under dispute.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the three years programme of the petitioner was to be completed on 23.06.2019 and the practical examination was to be held on 26.05.2019 and 27.05.2019. The Information Bulletin stated that the cut-off date for completion of training to be eligible to sit in the said examination was 30.06.2019. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the practical examination subject to the submission of the final completion certificate and she successfully passed the examination in question.

5. By the impugned communication, it has been informed to the petitioner that the DNB training completion certificate (final) was issued to her on 09.08.2019 and the petitioner had completed her training on 25.07.2019 after availing 32 days of extension for her training. The said 32 days of extension takes the petitioner beyond 30.06.2019 and therefore, as on 30.06.2019, i.e. the cut-off date, since the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination, her candidature itself has been cancelled.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken this court through Clause 8 of the letter issued by the respondent-NBE dated 11.03.2017 and states that the extension of training is permissible beyond two months, with the approval of the competent authority and in the instant case, the petitioner has only availed an extension of 32 days, therefore, if the examination in question was conducted by the respondent-NBE subject to completion of training by 30.06.2019, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak and others vs. National Board of Examinations and Another, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 604 and the decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Dr. Teena Peter vs. The National Board of Examinations and Ors, W.P. (C) No.5011/2016 dated 20.07.2016.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-NBE vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and he states that on the date of appearance in the examination, the petitioner was not eligible as her training was not complete. He also states that the training of the petitioner of three years, without extension, would have been completed only on 23.06.2019 and if the extension of 32 days is considered, in no case, was the petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria on 30.06.2019, and therefore, the impugned decision has rightly been taken. He further states that, if the relief so prayed for, is granted to the petitioner, there would be many other candidates who wou