Case Observation Report - III

Course Code - MLB303

Prepared By,

Arooj Jeelani Khan

LL.M - Business Law
Enroll No. A0319309016
AIALS
Dr. Bharti Talk (Petitioner)

National Board Of
(Respondent)

Examination & Ors

Counsel for the Respondent no. 1
Rakesh Gosain
 Facts of the Case

• The petitioner intended to obtain DNB qualification from NBE

• Qualified in preliminary exam in 1st attempt & was therefore registered as a

candidate of DNB.

• Completed 3 yrs residency which is mandatory before appearing in the final

theory exam.

• Appeared for final theory exam on 7 occasions but could not pass in all the
attempts.

• “Bulletin of information of national board of examination” provides that “The

Board will not provide the details of marks/grading in final theory/practical
examinations.
Submissions of the Petitioner
 There is no transparency in the exam as the bulletin does not allow details
of the grading/marks
 No system of informing the candidate about the result.
 On the Website , it is merely marked as ‘failed’ against the name of the
candidate. No marks are given.
 There is no transparency. What reigns is arbitrariness prejudice,
discrimination & corruption.
 Petitioner submits that she has performed exceedingly well in the exam and
a fair evaluation of her answer sheet would reveal that the petitioner is being
un-necessarily harassed and meted with arbitrary,unjust,unfair and illegal
treatment directly infringing her fundamental right under Article 14,16 and
21.
 Prayer

 A writ in the nature of mandamus, be issued directing fair evaluation

and retotaling of the petitioner’s answer sheet in all the final
examinations
 Any other appropriate order or direction be issued as is deemed fit
and proper .
 Preliminary Objections
 Hon’ble SC of India as categorically held that a candidate has no legally
enforceable right to seek revaluation of results (AIR 1984 SC 1543)
therefore the instant writ petition merits dismissal
 The candidate in absence of a guideline ,rule or byelaw has no right to seek
revaluation of their results.
• On 4th May 2006 an order was passed which indicated to the counsel for
the respondent to provide assistance or guidance to such candidates
who had repeatedly failed.

• The petitioner was directed by the Hon’ble Court to avail the counseling
session on 5th May 2006 at 3:00 pm.

• The petitioner created a scene at the office of NBE along with her
husband.
• The petitioner insisted only upon checking her answer sheet of her own
and was not willing to undertake the counseling session.

• In the short span of three hours the respondent could arrange the papers
for June 2005 session of the petitioner except part B paper IV.

• The petitioner again availed the counseling session on 5th May 2006 at
3:00pm on which date the part B paper 4 of June 2005 session was also
shown to her along with the remaining sessions.
• The petitioner has failed to demonstrate infringement of any right much less
a legal enforceable right which entitles petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

• The Hon’ble SC of India has held that a candidate has no legally enforceable
right to seek re-evaluation of result (AIR1984 SC 1543)

• 7 successive attempts of failure .

Therefore the instant Writ petition merits dismissal