NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONSversusG. ANAND RAMAMURTHY AND ORS.

A                 NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS
                                v.
                   G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY AND ORS.

                                 MAY 19, 2006

B   [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

         Education-Medical Super Specialities--Diplomate of National
    Examination (DNB)-Entrance test-Eligibility--Change in Schedule of
    the Examination by the lnstitute--Challenged by candidates-{,'andidates
    not fulfilling eligibility condition as per Rule 7 (12) of Bulletin of
c   lnformation--Candidates relying on past practice of the Institute for
    permission to appear in the examination-Permission granted by High
    Court-In appeal, held : Candidates not eligible to appear in the
    examination---They did not fulfil the eligibility under the Rule-Past
    practice cannot override Statutory Rules- High Court not justified in
D   directing the Board to hold examination against its policy-Bulletin of
    Information issued by National Board of Examination-Rule 7(12).

          Constitution of India, 1950--Art. 226-Writ jurisdiction-lnte1ference
    with academic mailers-Merging ofpast practice ofacademic institution and
    its policy decision-Permissibility-Held: Not permissible for High Court to
E   interfere with academic mauers and merge the past practice with the
    decision of the institute.

         Respondents herein had filed Writ Petition before High Court
    seeking direction to the petitioner to hold entrance examination for
F   Medical Super Speciality as per the Schedule mentioned in the Bulletin
    of2003. High Court passed the order directing it to hold the examination
    for the respondents according to the Schedule mentioned in the
    Bulletin of 2003. Hence the present appeal.

         Appellant-Board contended that the respondents were not qualified
G   or eligible to appear in the examination as per Rule 7(12) of Bulletin
    of Information issued by the National Board of Examination.

         Respondents contended that as per past practice of allowing the
    candidates for Super Speciality examinations, they were eligible to          •
H   appear in the examination.
                                       772
      NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS v. G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY          773

     Disposing of the appeal, the Court                                      A

      HELD : .-1. 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) of Bulletin of Information issued by
 National Board of Examination. Therefore, respondents are not               B
 permitted to sit for the Examinations in June, 2006 as directed by the
 High Court. 1776-F-Gl

      2. High Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to hold
examinations against its policy in complete disregard to the mandate         c
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. 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
                                                                             D
institution impugned before it to give relief to the respondents herein.
(776-H, 777-A-BJ

      3. High Court was also 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. (777-B)            E

      4. 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          F
of 2003. However, the High Court passed an order directing the
petitioner herein to hold the examinations for the 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. In view of categorical and explicit    G
disclosures made in the Bulletin, the petitioner has categorically
reserved its rights in the Bulletin of Information to change instructions
which would encompass and include all instructions relating to schedule
of examinations. There could be no embargo in the way of the
petitioner bonajidely changing the Examination Schedule, more so             H
    774                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   when it had admittedly and categorically reserved its rights to do so
    to the notice and lnformation of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. ln any
    event, the completion of three years training is a necessary concomitant
    for appearing in the DNB final examination. (777-B-H)

          5. No Malafide has been alleged against the petitioner in the writ
B   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
c   those streams where number of candidates is more than 100, from June
    2006 onwards to curtail its expenditure. The above policy decision
    cannot at all be faulted with. (778-B-D)

        CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to
D   Appeal (Civil) No. 8506 of 2006.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2006 of the High Court of
    Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. NO. 661/2006.

E        Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G. Rudreshwar Singh, Rakesh Gosain and
    Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Advs .. with him for the Appellant.

         S. Bala Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Bhatt and Amit Kumar (for
    respondent I & 2) Advs. with him for the Respondents.

F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : By consent of parties the special
    leave petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

G        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
H   allowed.
    NATI ON AL BOARD OF EXAMINAT!ONS v. G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 77 5


     We .,have heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Addl. Solicitor                 A
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 lnfomiation issued by the National
Board of Examinations and also the Bulletin oflnformation cum Application
Form for Diplomate of National Board (Final Examination), Centralised
                                                                                    B
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:                        c
         **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
                                                                                    D
                in the syllabus for Medical and Surgical super specialities
                respectively.

         (ii)   Candidates should have completed the prescribed three years
                training in the speciality after postgraduate degree, in an         E
                institution recognised by the MCl/NBE/University as specified
                under each speciality.

         (iii) Candidates should be in possession of a certificate of training
               from the Head of the department duly countersigned by the
                                                                                    F
               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.                            G

         (iv)   .......................
         (v)    Every candidate will be required to produce performance
                record (log book) containing details of work done by him/her        H
    776                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A                  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
B                  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."

c         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
D
    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
E   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
F   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
G   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
H   learned Senior Counsel. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified
     NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS v. G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY [LAKSHMANAN, l.] 777


in directing the petitioner to hold examinations against its policy in             A
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          B
High Court was not correct in applying the doctrine oflegitimate 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      c
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 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      D
 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           E
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        F
 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               G
 in the way of the petitioner bonajidely 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. I and 2. In any event,
 the completion of three years training is a necessary concomitant for
 appearing in the DNB final examination.
                                                                                   H
    778                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        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.

B         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
C   conduct the biannual examination only in those streams where number of
    candidates is more than I00, 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
D 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
E 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.
F
     K.K.T.                                                  Appeal disposed of.