Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
Versus
DR. TEENA PETER, W/O. SAVIO MATHEW AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
W.A. No.2106 of 2016
Decided On : 12-01-2017
For the Appellant : ADVS. SRI. S. SANAL KUMAR, SMT. BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN, SMT. T.J. SEEMA
For the Respondent: ADVS. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J., SRI. T.G. SUNIL (PRANAVAM), SRI. K.R. GANESH, ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA
The discretion of the National Board of Examinations in allowing candidates to appear for the examination and the entitlement to declaration of results based on the grant of leave and permission to appear for the examination.
Headnote:
DNB Course - Examination Result - [DNB Course] - [Rule 8 of Exhibit P3 Rules, Clause (4.1) of Exhibit P2 Information Bulletin] - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for appearing in the DNB final examination, the rules regarding granting of leave and extension of training period, and the discretion of NBE in allowing candidates to appear for the examination. The court emphasized that the grant of leave and the permission to appear for the examination without objection by the appellants entitled the candidate to the declaration of her results, despite completing the training after the cut-off date.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent, a candidate in the DNB Course, was granted leave due to illness related to pregnancy, and her training period was extended. She was permitted to appear for the practical examination, but the result was withheld on the ground that she completed the training after the cut-off date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of leave and permission to appear for the examination entitled the candidate to the declaration of her results, despite completing the training after the cut-off date.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent was entitled to the declaration of her practical examination results despite completing the training after the cut-off date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of leave and the permission to appear for the examination without objection entitled the candidate to the declaration of her results, emphasizing the discretion of NBE in allowing candidates to appear for the examination.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the declaration of the practical examination results for the first respondent.
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
The judgment dated 20.07.2016 in W.P(C) No.5011 of 2016 is called in question in this appeal by respondents 1 to 3 therein.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent, the writ petitioner, and quashed Exhibits P8 and P10 communications issued to the first respondent. The appellants were directed to declare the result of the practical examination of the first respondent and issue DNB certificate, if she has passed the practical examination undergone by her.
3. The first appellant, National Board of Examinations (NBE) is monitoring training programme in Diploma of National Board ('DNB', for short), which is equivalent to MRCP and FRCS. The duration of DNB is for three years. MBBS holders can join the DNB Course, after successful completion of entrance test. The first respondent joined the DNB Course in the year 2012 and she was undergoing training in the second respondent hospital for DNB Anesthesiology. The schedule of 2015 examination was announced as per Exhibit P2 Information Bulletin. The theory examination was scheduled to take place in June, 2015 and the practical examination in the months of September/October/November, 2015. As per Exhibit P2 [clause (4.1)-eligibility], the cut off date prescribed for completion of the training was 15.11.2015. The candidates, who would submit their provisional training completion certificate stating that they would complete their training by 15.11.2015, were to be permitted to appear for the examinations. Such provisional certificate is to be submitted by the candidates in Annexure III format annexed to the Information Bulletin. The first respondent submitted provisional certificate in Annexure III, duly issued by the Medical Trust Hospital, on 22.04.2015, as is evident from Annexure R2. The candidates were also required to submit their final training completion certificate as per Annexure IV, within 15 days of completion of the training. Likewise, the first respondent submitted the said certificate (as per Annexure R3) on 05.01.2016 making it clear that she has completed the mandatory period of three years training on 03.01.2016 and this includes 45 days leave approved by the first appellant as per their letter dated 09.10.2015.
It is relevant to note that after the theory examination, the first respondent could not attend the DNB training from 01.08.2015 to 15.09.2015 owing to Hyperemesis Gravidarum (illness related to pregnancy). Consequently, she applied for medical leave, which was granted by the first appellant. These facts are not in dispute.
4. The letter sanctioning the leave of the first respondent, issued by the first appellant dated 09.10.2015, is produced at Exhibit P4, which makes it clear that the leave from 01.08.2015 to 15.09.2015 availed by the candidate on medical ground has been considered and accepted by NBE and the DNB training of the candidate is to be extended in compliance of the prescribed NBE leave rules.
5. The eligibility of DNB final examination shall be determined strictly in accordance with the criteria prescribed in the Information Bulletin of the respective session. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the NBE have sanctioned leave to the first respondent in compliance of the prescribed NBE leave rules. In view of such grant of leave, the training period of the first respondent was extended upto 03.01.2016. During the interregnum, i.e., during the extended period of training, the first respondent was permitted to appear for the practical examination on 05.11.2015. Consequently, she appeared for the examination. However, the result of the practical examination was withheld on the ground that the first respondent could not complete the training on or before the cut off date of 15.11.2015 prescribed in Exhibit P2 Information Bulletin. Exhibit P8 is the result of the practical examination and Exhibit P10 is the communication issued by the third appellant in this regar
