Delhi HC refuses to quash NBE order to extend training period

A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court, which sought to set aside the decision of NationalBoard of Examination, to extend the training period by six weeks for final year students of Diplomate of National Board, due to COVID19.

The petitioner contended that NBE is not empowered to take such a decision to change the training period for the students. That the decision is discriminatory as it only applies to final year students and not to first year and second year students. They added that the notice for the same isuncertain, and that it could affect the careers of the students as they’re unable to take the jobs offered to them from various hospitals. The petition added that the reason is given to extend the period, COVID19 pandemic, is arbitrary. And that, Medical Council of India, exempted the doctors taking specialty training programsfrom COVID19 duties, and therefore NBE has no reason to extend the training period.

The NBE argued that the decision was taken in the interest of public justice. Since, the entrance exams were not conducted, fresh infusion of DNB candidates was not possible. And if the board allows final year students to leave, their exit with no new infusion, will create a void in the system. This would impact the public health system in a negative manner. Therefore, in order to manage the disturbances caused by COVID19, the decision was taken. They also added that promissory estoppel does not apply to education. And that, there’s no discrimination as the final year students are more skilled than first and second year students.

Delhi High Court refused to set aside the decision of the NBE. The court held that the decision is ambiguous because whole situation due to the pandemic is a special circumstance and nothing is clear as of now. The court also laid down that NBE is an independent body and is not bound by the Medical Council’s decision to exempt trainees from duties. That, NBE has the power to extend the training period.

The Single bench also laid that the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and the legitimate expectation doesn’t apply to the issues of education. The personal interest of students cannot supersede the public interest.