http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  8506 of 2006

PETITIONER: National Board of Examinations

RESPONDENT: G. Anand Ramamurthy & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/05/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T           Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

       By consent of  parties   the   special leave petition itself is  taken up for final hearing.         This special leave petition is directed against the final  judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi on 27.4.2006  passed in LPA No.661 of 2006, which was in turn directed against  the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of  Delhi dated 21.4.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.5565-66 of 2006,  whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed.         We have heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Addl.  Solicitor General for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bala Krishnan,  learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.  The matter was  argued at length.         We have perused the Bulletin of Information issued by  the National Board of Examinations and also the Bulletin of  Information cum Application Form for Diplomate of National Board  (Final Examination), Centralised Entrace Test for the relevant post.   Our attention was also drawn to Rule 7.12, which deals with  eligibility for appearing in super specialities, and reads thus: "7.12  Eligibility for appearing in Super Specialities: **Medical Super Specialities and Surgical Super  Specialities (refer Para 1.2) i       Candidates should be in possession of a  recognised Postgraduate degree qualification as  specified under each speciality given in the  syllabus for Medical and Surgical super specialities  respectively.

i       Candidates should have completed the prescribed  three years training in the speciality after  postgraduate degree, in an institution recognised  by the MCI/NBE/University as specified under each  speciality.

i       Candidates should be in possession of a certificate  of training from the Head of the department duly  countersigned by the Head of the institution and  produce necessary records as may be required.

**Note:  There will be three years training in each  Super Speciality for all the subjects listed under  clause 1.2 of this Bulletin with effect from January,  2000.

i        .......................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

i       Every candidate will be required to produce  performance record (log book) containing details of  work done by him/her duly certified by the  supervisor, and countersigned by the  administrative Head of the Institution at the time of  their Practical Examination failing which he/she will  not be allowed to take the practical examination.   However, a certificate to this effect has to be  attached alongwith application form for eligibility  purposes.  The supervisor would also offer his  remarks on the training received by the candidate  in the log book.  Honorary staff members, who are  recognised as supervisors by their institutions or  the local university will also be recognised by the  NBE."

       According to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the respondents  herein are not eligible to sit for examination and, therefore, the  permission granted by the High Court permitting to sit for the  examination is not proper and not called for.  Rule 7(12) specifically  provides that the candidates should be in possession of the  recognised postgraduate degree qualification as specified under  each speciality given in the syllabus for Medical and Surgical super  specialities respectively.  Clause 7(12), sub-clause (ii), stipulates  that candidates should have completed the prescribed three years  training in the speciality after postgraduate degree, in an institution  recognised by the MCI/NBE/University as specified under each  speciality.  According to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the respondents  will be completing three years training only by 30th June, 2006.    They are not qualified and eligible to appear for June 2006  examination.                  Mr. S. Bala Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the  respondents, per contra submitted that the stand of the petitioner  herein was totally inconsistent not only in terms of the eligibility  criteria but also as per past practice.  According to him, the  petitioner Institution has been allowing the candidates for taking the  super speciality examinations, which were conducted in the month  of June.  But the facts remain that such a past practice as argued  before the High Court has not been pleaded at all.    This apart, the  alleged past practice cannot override the statutory rules and  regulations since the respondents are not qualified as per Rule  7(12).  We are, therefore, not permitting them to sit for the  Examinations in June, 2006 as directed by the High Court.   

       We have carefully considered the submissions made by  both the learned Senior Counsel.  In our opinion, the High Court  was not justified in directing the petitioner to hold examinations  against its policy in complete disregard to the mandate of this Court  for not interfering in the academic matters particularly when the  interference in the facts of the instant matter lead to perversity and  promotion of illegality.  The High Court was also not justified in  exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to  merge a past practice with decision of the petitioner impugned  before it to give relief to the respondents herein.  Likewise the High  Court was not correct in applying the doctrine of legitimate  expectation even when the respondents herein cannot be said to be  aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner herein.  The High Court  was also not justified in granting a relief not sought for by the  respondents in the writ petition.  The prayer of the respondents in  the writ petition was to seek a direction to the petitioner herein to  hold the examinations as per the schedule mentioned in the  Bulletin of 2003.  However, the High Court passed an order  directing the petitioner herein to hold the examinations for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

respondents according to the schedule mentioned in the Bulletin of  2003.  The effect of this order is that the petitioner would have to  permit the respondents to take the exam even if they do not meet  the eligibility criteria fixed by the petitioner in its policy of 2003.  Our  attention was also drawn to the Bulletin of Information of 2003.  In  view of categorical and explicit disclosures made in the Bulletin, all  candidates were made aware that instructions contained in the  Information Bulletin including but not limited to examination  schedule were liable to changes based on decisions taken by the  Board of the petitioner from time to time.  In the said Bulletin of  Information, candidates are requested to refer to the latest bulletin  or corrigendum that may be issued to incorporate these changes.   Thus, it is seen that the petitioner has categorically reserved its  rights in the Bulletin of Information to change instructions as  aforesaid which would encompass and include all instructions  relating to schedule of examinations.  It is also mentioned in the  Bulletin in no unascertain terms that the instructions contained in  the Bulletin including the schedule of examinations were liable to  changes based on the decisions taken by the Governing Body of  the petitioner from time to time.  Hitherto Examinations were being  conducted twice a year i.e. in the months of June and December,  2006.  There could be no embargo in the way of the petitioner  bonafidely changing the Examination Schedule, more so when it  had admittedly and categorically reserved its rights to do so to the  notice and information of the respondent nos.1 and 2.  In any event,  the completion of three years training is a necessary concomitant  for appearing in the DNB final examination.

       Likewise, the bare perusal of clause 4 of the Bulletin of  Information, June 2006, it manifest that the petitioner has reserved  right to change the guidelines/practice and further it has been  made absolutely clear that the candidate shall be governed by the  Bulletin of Information for the session in which the candidate  appears.

       No malafide has been alleged against the petitioner in the  writ petition.  The Governing Body of the petitioner in the larger  interest of the candidates as well as of the petitioner, and medical  education in general, has decided to change the current practice of  conducting the examinations on biannual basis for all the  disciplines of modern medicine with the revised policy to conduct  the biannual examination only in those streams where number of  candidates is more than 100, from June 2006 onwards to curtail its  expenditure.  The above policy decision, in our opinion, cannot at  all be faulted with.

       In the result, we set aside the order passed by the learned  Single Judge as affirmed by the learned Judges of the Division  Bench of the High Court of Delhi.  In view of this, nothing further  survives in this special leave petition.  The special leave petition is  accordingly disposed of.

       We also place on record the statement made by the  learned Additional Solicitor General that any student who was  admitted consequent to the Bulletin of Information published for the  year June, 2003/ August, 2003 and have opted to undergo training  for a period specified is not being offered any relaxation and no  student is being permitted to sit for any examination contrary to the  said requirement.