DELHI HIGH COURT RULES THAT DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE NEET (PG) IS JUSTIFIED AS THE EXAMINATION ETHICS COMMITTEE HAD MADE CLEAR FINDINGS

A single-judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) comprising of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, passed an Order, dated 08-08-2024, in the matter of Chhaniyara Dharmendra Prafulbhai Vs. Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 9412/2024 and observed that there was no reason to intervene in either the findings of the Examination Ethics Committee dated 13.06.2023 or the Impugned Emails dated 18.06.2024 and 20.06.2024 sent by National Board Of Examinations In Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to the Petitioner, which conveyed the Committee’s decision to bar the Petitioner from appearing in NEET (PG)-2024.

FACTS:

1) That the aforesaid Writ Petition (W.P.) was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (High Court) by one, Chhaniyara Dharmendra Prafulbhai (Petitioner) against the Union of India and Ors. (Respondents), who filed the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, instructing the Respondents to quash the Order dated 18.06.2024 and the Email dated 20.06.2024, which cancelled the Petitioner’s candidature for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Postgraduate), 2024 [“NEET (PG)-2024”] and barred him from taking the examination. The Petitioner also asked the Court to direct the Respondents to immediately issue an admit card, allowing the Petitioner to appear in the exam scheduled for 11.08.2024.

2) The Petitioner completed his MBBS in 2019 from the University of Northern Philippines – College of Medicine, Tamag, Vigan City. In 2020, he finished his compulsory rotatory internship. After completing both his MBBS and internship, the Petitioner applied for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE), a mandatory licensure exam introduced under the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, for Foreign Medical Graduates.

3) The Petitioner submitted that, according to the existing rules of the NBEMS, passing the FMGE is a prerequisite for Indian citizens or Overseas Citizens of India with a primary medical qualification from a foreign medical institution who wish to obtain provisional or permanent registration with the Medical Council of India or any State Medical Council after 15.03.2002. The FMGE December 2022 Session was initially scheduled for 04.12.2022 but was postponed to 20.01.2023. The result of this exam was announced on 03.02.2023, and the Petitioner subsequently registered with the Delhi Medical Council.

4) Meanwhile, on 07.01.2023, Respondent No. 2, NBEMS, invited applications for NEET (PG)-2023, with the online submission period running from 07.01.2023 to 27.01.2023. The Petitioner applied for NEET (PG)-2023 without reviewing the relevant rules. The exam required candidates to have passed the FMGE and the candidate require registration with the State or National Medical Council before applying. Although the Petitioner did pass the FMGE, the result had not been announced, and he had not registered with any Medical Council at the time of filling out the NEET (PG)-2023 form.

5) On 05.06.2023, the admit cards for NEET (PG)-2023 were issued, Respondent No. 2 sent the Petitioner an email issuing a show cause notice and registering an ‘unfair means case’ against him. The Petitioner was directed to respond by 12.06.2023. On 10.06.2023, the Petitioner replied, explaining that his mistake was unintentional and assuring that it would not be repeated. On 07.08.2023, the Petitioner received another email informing him that the Examination Ethics Committee, after a thorough investigation and review of the evidence and applicable UMC guidelines, found him in violation of examination ethics and decided to cancel his candidature for NEET (PG)-2023. The Petitioner was also warned not to engage in unethical activities in the future.

6) On 16.04.2024, Respondent no. 2 invited applications for NEET (PG)-2024, and the Petitioner duly submitted his application. On 18.06.2024, the date the admit cards were issued, Respondent no. 3, Head of the Department of Examination Centre of NBEMS, sent the Petitioner an email stating that, in continuation of the previous punishment, he was barred from appearing in NEET (PG)-2024 for the offence committed during NEET (PG)-2023. The Petitioner raised a grievance on the Online Communication portal of Respondent No. 2 on 19.06.2024. The following day, Respondent No. 2 reiterated in an Email that the Petitioner was barred from appearing in NEET (PG)-2024. NEET (PG)-2024 was scheduled for 23.06.2024 but was cancelled, a day prior by the Government of India. On 05.07.2024, NBEMS issued a notification announcing the rescheduled date for NEET (PG)-2024 as 11.08.2024.

7) Consequently, the Petitioner approached the Court. The Court issued a notice on 11.07.2024, and Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their replies. Both the Petitioner and Respondents have submitted their respective written arguments.

 

ISSUES:

Whether the NBEMS arbitrarily prevented the Petitioner from appearing in the NEET (PG)-2024.

 

OBSERVATIONS:

a) The Court noted that the Petitioner violated the rules by submitting false information when applying for NEET (PG)-2023. Despite not having qualified the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) or being registered with a Medical Council at the time of application, the Petitioner misrepresented his eligibility, which constituted an act of using “unfair means.”

b) The Bench observed that the Examination Ethics Committee had made an unambiguous decision on 13.06.2023 to debar the Petitioner from appearing in both NEET (PG)-2023 and NEET (PG)-2024. This decision was recorded in the minutes of the Committee’s Meeting and was based on the Petitioner’s violation of examination ethics.

c) The High Court acknowledged that there was a miscommunication by NBEMS in the email sent on 07.08.2023, which only mentioned the cancellation of the Petitioner’s NEET (PG)-2023 candidature and did not inform him of the two-year ban. However, the Court concluded that this miscommunication was due to human error and did not alter the original decision made by the Ethics Committee.

d) The Bench found no reason to interfere with the Ethics Committee’s findings or the subsequent Emails sent by NBEMS on 18.06.2024 and 20.06.2024, reiterating the Petitioner’s debarment from NEET (PG)-2024. The Court emphasised that the Petitioner did not challenge the correctness of the findings regarding his use of unfair means, and thus, the Committee’s decision stood firm.

e) While the Court acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the Petitioner due to the miscommunication, it concluded that this alone was not sufficient ground for the Court to provide relief. The Court determined that the Petitioner’s actions and the clear findings of the Committee justified the penalties imposed, despite the communication error.

 

Conclusion:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Court dismissed the Petition, upholding the decision of the Examination Ethics Committee to debar the Petitioner from appearing in NEET (PG)-2024. The Bench found that the Petitioner had indeed, used unfair means by providing false information in his NEET (PG)-2023 application and that the Committee’s decision to impose a two-year ban was justified and documented in the Minutes of their Meeting on 13.06.2023.

Although there was a miscommunication by NBEMS, regarding the extent of the penalty in the email sent on 07.08.2023, the Court held that this error did not warrant judicial interference or relief for the Petitioner. The Court emphasised that the penalties were based on established rules and ethical guidelines, which the Petitioner had violated, and therefore, the Committee’s decision was final and binding.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer