LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-38

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS Vs. G ANAND RAMAMURTHY

Decided On April 27, 2006
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS Appellant
V/S
G.ANAND RAMAMURTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) Respondent nos. 1 & 2 are doctors having obtained degree in Masters of Surgery (MS). In their pursuit for still having post doctoral decree, they enrolled themselves with the National Board of Examinations for the Diplomate of National Board (DNB) in June, 2003. As per the Bulletin of Information and Application Form it was stated that examinations were held twice a year; (a) the written examination for primary will be held on Sunday following Second Saturday of June and December and Final on Second Saturday and Sunday at the specified centres. Just when they have finished almost three years and expected to appear in June, 2006, there was a change in the policy on 26.3.2006 when their discipline was not included in the. examination notification published in the newspaper.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has issued a mandamus to the appellant only to abide by and honour the curriculum contained in the bulletin of information as publicly held out by them as far back as in June, 2003. However, impugning the said judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant before us has filed the present appeal, inter alia, on the ground that no mandamus could have been issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge would be against the policy of the appellant which has been changed in 2006 at the advice of the experts in the field. It is submitted that the policy decision was passed on fair assessment of administrative as well as financial factors and considerations that holding of such examination would have a detrimental and prejudicial effect on the functioning of the appellant. It is further contended by Mr.Manmohan, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erroneously sought to apply the principle of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. It is also contended that even if the appellant agrees with the holding of the examination for the respondents as per the bulletin of information and application forms for Diplomate of National Board in June, 2003, still in view of the eligibility criterion as mentioned at para 7.12 (ii) and (iii), the respondent cannot take examination. Para 7.12 is as under:-