NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS versus G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 19-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS 
v. 
G. ANAND RAMAMURTHY AND ORS. 
MAY 19, 2006 
[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 
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 
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 of past practice of academic institution and 
its policy decision-Permissibility-Held: Not permissible for High Court to 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
B 
c 
D 
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 
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 
G 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.