IMPORTANT POINT
The authority of examination conductors to determine examination policies and the public interest in ensuring the quality of doctors were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The Challenge

1. This writ petition prays that Clauses 4.2.2, 6.6 and 9.7 of the Information Bulletin for the final DNB [Diplomate of National Board] (Broad Speciality) theory and final examinations conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) be quashed. The DNB qualification is, I am informed, is equivalent to MD [Doctor of Medicine].

2. The Clauses under challenge, to the extent they are relevant, read thus:

Clause 4.2.2

"4.2.2 Practical Examination

There is no provision for grace marks in Practical examination."

Clause 6.6.

"There will be no re-evaluation or rechecking/re-totaling of answer sheets. Requests for re-evaluation/re-totaling shall not be entertained."

Clause 9.7

"9.7 The OSCE component of DNB-Final Practical Examinations is a proprietary examination and is conducted only by National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences. The contents of this exam are confidential, proprietary and are owned by National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences. NBEMS explicitly prohibits the candidate, from reproducing, transmitting or publishing any or some contents of this exam, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means verbal or written, electronic or mechanical for any purpose whatsoever. NBEMS shall not entertain any request for sharing any content of the OSCE including question paper, answer keys and answer sheets."

3. Having heard Mr. Abhimanyu Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, learned counsel for the Respondent 2, it is clear that no case for striking down any of the impugned clauses can be said to exist.

A prefatory observation

4. As the challenge is purely legal and would apply in rem, it is not necessary for me to enter into the facts of the case. Needless to say, the Court can quash the impugned provisions only if they are found to suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity.

5. At the outset, it has to be noted that the provisions under challenge relate to the manner in which various aspects of the DNB Final examination are to be marked and examined. There is an overwhelming, and undeniable, element of public interest involved in ensuring that the authorities who frame the rules, or guidelines, for conduct of such examinations, and the manner in which the candidates are to be graded and marked, are permitted maximum latitude. It is to those who clear such examinations that the health and wellbeing of the citizenry of the country are consigned. Optimum quality, of the doctors who emerge from such examinations, has to be sedulously assured. The hand that wields the scalpel cannot be allowed to shake.

6. It is only, therefore, if the provisions under challenge are patently unconstitutional that the Court can even tinker with them, let alone strike them down.

Clause 4.4.2

7. Clause 4.2.2 of the Information Bulletin merely states that there is no provision for grace marks in the practical examination. The Final DNB examination consists of theory and practical. Admittedly, upto 8 grace marks may be awarded in the theory examination.

8. Mr. Yadav's contention is that the stipulation to the effect that there would be no grace marks in the practical examination infracts Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that a candidate who does not perform upto the optimum level in theory is entitled to 8 grace marks, whereas a similarly situated candidate, who may fare excellently in theory but does not put in an optimum performance in the practical examination does not get the benefit of grace marks. This, he submits, would effectively be discriminating between the two candidates.

9. It is obvious that the submission is completely misconceived. The question of discrimination arises only between equals.

10. Article 14 is infracted only where there is a discrimination between equals, between whom there is no intelligible differentia as would bear a rational nexus to the object of the provision.

11. Inasmuch as the Clause allowing grace marks in theory, and the impugned C