Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Snigdha Sharma vs National Board Of Examination In ... on 29 August, 2025
$~107
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13161/2025 and CM APPL. 53923/2025
DR. SNIGDHA SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Mr. Yash Dubey,
Mr. Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Mr. Aditya and
Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN
MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Mrinal
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Varun Rajawat and Mr. Zillur
Rahman, Advocates for R1.
Mr. Atishay Jain, Mr. Mugdh Kumar, Ms. Arushi
and Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocates for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 29.08.2025
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"a. Quash notice dated 14.08.2025 in as much as the provision of revaluation is available only in a rare event of an answer being wrongly marked as "not attempted" by the assessor and it ignores any other event of discrepancy which demands revaluation by a candidate;
b. Modify the notice dated 14.08.2025 to the extent of allowing the Petitioner and similarly affected candidates to provide a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets in case of any event of discrepancy which demands revaluation by a candidate;
c. Quash Clause 5.3 of the Information Bulletin to the extent This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 that the same only allows revaluation in a rare event of an answer being wrongly marked as "not attempted" by the assessor and it ignores any other event of discrepancy which demands revaluation by a candidate;
d. Modify Clause 5.3 of the Information Bulletin to the extent of allowing the Petitioner and similarly affected candidates to provide a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets in case of any event of discrepancy which demands revaluation by a candidate;
e. Allow the Petitioner with an option of revaluation for the DNB Final Theory Examination, June 2025 Session; f. Direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint an independent examiner for re-evaluating the answer scripts of the Petitioner and issue fresh score card on the basis of re-evaluation"
2. The case as set out in the present petition is that the petitioner is a registered DNB (Palliative Medicine) Trainee with National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Having completed the requisite period of training and having satisfied all eligibility conditions as prescribed by NBEMS in the Information Bulletin, petitioner appeared for the DNB final theory examination, June, 2025 between 25.06.2025 to 28.06.2025. The said examination was conducted by respondent no.1/NBEMS.
3. The DNB final examination is conducted in two stages - (i) theory examination and (ii) practical examination. Candidate is permitted to appear in the practical examination only upon securing the qualifying marks in the theory examination, which consists of four papers of 100 marks each. The minimum requirement to qualify for the practical examination is 200 marks out of the aggregate 400 marks.
4. On 14.08.2025, results of theory examination were declared by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 NBEMS in which petitioner is stated to have scored 176 marks. Therefore, she is short of 24 marks to be eligible to appear in the practical examination.
5. Clause 5.3 of the Information Bulletin inter alia allows re-evaluation only in a rare event of an unassessed answer being wrongly marked as 'not attempted by the assessor'.
6. As petitioner was aggrieved by much lower marks awarded to her which did not reflect her actual performance in the examination, and further suspecting irregularities in evaluation, petitioner in terms of Clause 5.3 of Information Bulletin applied for digital copies of her evaluated answer sheets. Thereafter, on 16.08.2025 petitioner applied for revaluation of all four answer scripts.
7. Petitioner, subsequently, submitted a detailed representation on 20.08.2025 to the Additional Director (Medical), Examination Confidential Department, NBEMS requesting urgent re-valuation. It is the case of petitioner that no response has been received from respondents.
8. It is further the case of the petitioner that she showed her answer sheets to experts in Palliative medicine and they concluded that answers written by petitioner are correct and accurate and there is an error in marking.
9. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that due to an inadvertent error committed by assessor, petitioner will suffer huge academic loss since without clearing theory examination, she cannot sit for practical examination which is scheduled to commence from 02.09.2025. She submits that petitioner is short of just 24 marks to be eligible to appear in practical examination.
10. In this backdrop, present petition has been filed inter alia seeking This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 direction to allow re-valuation on the ground that there are apparent errors in re-evaluation which have been confirmed by very senior professors who are expert in Palliative Medicines.
11. She also orally urges that she may be permitted to take practical examination subject to the outcome of the present writ petition.
12. In view of the above, issue notice.
13. Learned counsel as noted above accepts notice for respective respondents. On petitioner taking steps issue notice to unrepresented respondents.
14. Mr. Waize Ali Noor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submits that petitioner has challenged Clause 5.3 of the Information Bulletin. Clause 5.3 reads as under:
"5.3 Declaration of DNB Final Examination Result:
• DNB final is a qualifying examination.
• Results of DNB final examinations (Theory & Practical) are declared as PASS/FAIL. In case, the applicant candidate is provisionally eligible on date of declaration of result his/her result shall be withheld & shall be declared only upon status being eligible, on receipt of required documents by the prescribed cutoff date.
• Results can be seen on NBEMS website
https://natboard.edu.in
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
• Digital copies/photocopies of Theory Answer Scripts: Candidate who would fail to qualify the DNB Final Theory Examination can seek weblinks to access the digital copies of their answer scripts by paying Rs. 100/- (plus GST@18%) per question paper. Request for providing the same can be made through Communication Web Portal of NBEMS, within 30 calendar days of declaration of theory result of concerned. The This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 prescribed fee can be paid online through NBEMS website. • Candidates who would fail to qualify the Practical Examination can obtain detailed marksheet of practical examination on submission of a request through Communication Web Portal of NBEMS and on payment of a fee of Rs. 1,000/- online through NBEMS website.
• Re-evaluation: There shall be a provision for re-evaluation of unassessed answer(s) only, in a rare event of an answer(s) being wrongly marked as NOT ATTEMPTED by the assessor. Request for re-evaluation of an unassessed answer(s) can be made through Communication Web Portal of NBEMS within 45 calendar days of the declaration of theory result of the concerned specialty. An administrative fee of Rs. 500/- per paper shall be charged for the same which can be paid online through NBEMS website."......
15. He submits that petitioner was conscious that Clause 5.3 is a part of the Information Bulletin and after having unsuccessfully taken the examination, she cannot now turn around and challenge the examination process. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129, particularly para 21 thereof, which reads as under:
"Even otherwise the petitioners have undertaken the exam with the stipulation of minimum cut off marks in written and oral examination and then having failed, they cannot turn round and are estopped to contend to the contrary. This Court in K.Siraj (supra) has observed that when the candidates participated in the interview with the knowledge that for selection they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass marks, on being unsuccessful in interview, could not turn around and challenge that the prescription of minimum marks was improper.........."
(emphasis supplied)
16. He further contends that in the absence of any provision under the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 information bulleting for re-evaluation of answer sheets, no candidate has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation. To buttress his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision dated 08.02.2024 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dnyaneshwar Hiralal Phuse v. Union of India and Anr., [W.P.(C) 14717/2023], particularly Paras 21 to 23 thereof, which reads as under:
"21. Clause 6.6 merely says that there is no provision for reevaluation, rechecking or re-totaling of the answer sheets. This, again, is a matter of examination policy.
22. Mr. Yadav has not been able to draw my attention to any decision which says that re-evaluation is a matter of right. In fact, there are several judicial pronouncements4 which clearly hold that where there is no provision of re-evaluation, neither is it open for a candidate to seek, from the Court, a direction to have his paper reevaluated, nor is open to the Court to so direct. Any scope for judicial interference arises only if there exists a provision for re-evaluation which is being arbitrarily implemented.
23. As there is no inherent right to re-evaluation, the challenge to Clause 6.6 of the Information Bulletin must also fail."
(emphasis supplied)
17. On the other hand, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 as well as decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rustam Garg v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 2759 to contend that in exceptional circumstances where the evaluation undertaken by the expert body is found to be manifestly perverse or so wholly unreasonable that no rational evaluator could have arrived at such conclusion, the High Court would be This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03 justified in exercising its constitutional prerogative to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural sanctity.
18. On a query posed by Court as to whether any material has been placed on record to substantiate that evaluation done by the assessor is manifestly perverse, learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out any such material. This Court also finds that no opinion of the expert or text books have been placed on record to suggest that evaluation of the answer scripts done by the assessor is patently perverse.
19. Besides that, DNB theory exam is based on subjective questions which allow for varied and detailed responses, unlike Multiple Choice Questions, where the candidates select the correct answer from a list of provided options, which are verifiable. Therefore, this Court is prima facie of the view that in case of subjective questions, "hand-off" approach is advisable and matter is ought to be left to the examiner/expert. Further, clause 5.3 of the information bulletin allows re-evaluation only in a rare event of an unassessed answer being wrongly marked as 'not attempted by the assessor', which is not the situation in the present case.
20. This Court also prima facie find substance in the submission of Mr. Noor that the petitioner is estopped from challenging clause 5.3 of the Information Bulletin after unsuccessfully taken the exam as per procedure prescribed in the said Bulletin.
21. In view of the above, this Court does not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner for granting interim relief as prayed. Accordingly, the said prayer is rejected.
22. Let counter-affidavits be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinders thereto be filed before the next date of hearing.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03
23. Re-notify on 25.09.2025.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 29, 2025/jg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/09/2025 at 23:24:03