Case Name: Dr Prasuna Chiluka v. National Board of Examinations & Anr
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15345/2023
Dated: May 21, 2024
Quorum: Justice C Hari Shankar
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner is a medical professional who earned an MD in general medicine on June 27, 2015, and an MBBS in March 2010. The petitioner was given high dose intravenous and oral steroids in 2015 after receiving a diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Even now, the treatment is still being administered in part. The petitioner experienced numerous difficulties as a result, including severe steroid toxicity, hirsutism, acne, obesity, and myopathy.
The petitioner applied for and was hired for the position of Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist at the District Hospital in Sircilla, Telangana, in July 2018 when her health began to improve somewhat. The writ petition alleges that the petitioner’s profession as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist required her to work roughly thirty hours a week, allowing her to attend to her personal medical issues.
Nevertheless, in order to be admitted to Super Speciality programmes, the petitioner took the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) 2019 NEET-SS exam. The petitioner selected the Medical Gastroenterology Super Specialty. Consequently, she was accepted into the Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, for the Super Specialty of Medical Gastroenterology DrNB programme (henceforth referred to as “PIMSRC”).
The petitioner went back to her native Karimnagar throughout the aforementioned time frame. The writ petition claims that the petitioner chose to return to her job at the District Hospital, Sircilla, even though it only required five hours of labour each day, since she needed a source of money as the family’s only provider. On November 28, 2019, the petitioner was permitted to report to work at the Sircilla District Hospital by the Commissioner of the Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad in Hyderabad, subject to disciplinary action.
The petitioner filed an application with the PIMSRC in November 2019, requesting an eight-month leave of absence. On January 10, 2020, the PIMSRC forwarded the application, with a copy marked to the petitioner, to the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), the appropriate leave sanctioning authority.
ISSUES:
The primary concern in this case is that the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) did not specifically deny the petitioner’s request for leave, which led her to believe it was approved and ultimately became a source of disagreement.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 50 of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- The extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest is one factor that a regional transport authority must consider when evaluating an application for a contract carriage permit. Additionally, the authority must take into account any representations that may then be made, or may have previously been made, by individuals who already hold contract carriage permits in the region, by any local authority or police authority in the region, regarding the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted being sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the in addition to being sent to the petitioner just one day prior to the DrNB Final Theory examination, which is scheduled for October 12, 2023, the contested communication that revoked the petitioner’s DrNB candidature also failed to reveal the appropriate application of mind. It is argued that the petitioner’s DrNB candidature was cancelled for entirely mechanical reasons.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh presented a completely new argument during the court’s oral arguments to support the petitioner’s request to have her DrNB candidature revoked. This argument, which is unsupported by the contested cancellation order, is that the petitioner was carrying out her duties as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist at the District Hospital, Sircilla during the time she wanted to be considered to be on leave. In addition to arguing that the impugned order cannot be supported by such new grounds, Mr. Harshavardhan contends that this cannot serve as justification for cancelling the petitioner’s DrNB candidature even on the merits.
Given that the petitioner was required to complete three years of DrNB training, of which two years and three32 days have already been completed, and only thirty-three days remain, the applicable Rules allow her to complete the said training until December 31, 2024, at which point she will be eligible to receive the DrNB qualification. As long as the petitioner is able to complete the required mandatory training until December 31, 2024, she is eligible to take the DrNB Final Theory examination, which will take place on May 15–17, 2024, without having to revert to the next examination in January 2025.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the submissions made by the petitioners stating that the petitioner did not reveal that she worked at the District Hospital Sircilla as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist when she enrolled in DrNB programme.
Before enrolling in the institute where the DrNB training was to be completed, a candidate who was employed by another organisation was required to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or Relieving Letter issued by that employer, according to the “FAQ”1 published on the website of the MCC that conducted the NEET SS 2019.
It was also contended that the petitioner did not provide any such NOC from the Telangana government or the District Hospital Sircilla before to beginning DrNB course. Because of this, the petitioner was not qualified to continue with the DrNB course, and the NBEMS was therefore entitled to revoke the petitioner’s candidature.
In particular, Clause 8.7 of the Registration Letter dated June 22, 2020, which the NBEMS sent to the petitioner to register her for DrNB training, stated that DrNB training extensions were only allowed under exceptional circumstances with prior approval from the NBE and were not to be granted on a regular basis. This letter addressed the extension of DrNB training upon a candidate’s availability of leave for 30 days annually.
Even in the NBEMS approval letter dated December 20, 2021, which granted the petitioner’s request for a leave of absence from 14 September 2021 to 3 October 2021 due to her marriage, it was made clear that extending the leave for more than a year would result in the petitioner’s candidatures being cancelled.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that these conditions are not met by the contested order. Her absence from DrNB training was not mentioned in the 4 October 2023 show cause notice that suggested to cancel her DrNB candidature. The petitioner’s purported inability to complete the necessary number of FATs was the sole basis for cancellation, as stated in the aforementioned show cause notice.
In the event that an applicant meets all necessary requirements, such as attending classes and receiving training, the court cannot become overly technical in determining the candidate’s eligibility to become a licenced medical practitioner. In these situations, the Court must consider the preferences of each applicant individually and determine whether it would serve the public interest to prevent the candidate from practicing medicine.
There is no disputing the fact that she had serious disabilities even at home due to Lupus Nephritis. Such a candidate’s DrNB candidature being cancelled would be a total loss for her morale, especially considering that her DrNB programme is almost over. Here, the facts are important. Despite the petitioner’s physical limitations, erasing all of her DrNB training with a single stroke of the pen would not benefit her or the interests of the general public. Additionally, the community would lose the services of a potentially committed superspecialist in medicine.
The court took a pragmatic standpoint, this Court believes that the petitioner’s DrNB candidature cannot be sustained by the contested order dated October 11, 2023, since justice must always prevail in a space where the rule of law governs and justice is our primary objective.
Thus, the findings of the aforementioned assessment would be made public. In addition, the petitioner has the right to finish her DrNB training and finish her candidature, pending the results of the DrNB final theory exam. All ensuing reliefs would come next.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
