Scribd
Upload
30 views10 pages

Case Observation Report - III: Course Code - MLB303

This case observation report summarizes a petition filed by Dr. Bharti Talk against the National Board of Examination regarding transparency in the DNB final theory examination. The petitioner appeared for the exam 7 times but failed to pass. She argued that there is no transparency in the exam process and sought re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The respondent argued that candidates have no legal right to seek re-evaluation under the board's rules. The court directed counseling for the petitioner and showed her previous answer sheets. However, the petitioner refused counseling and demanded to see only her own sheets.

Uploaded by

AroojKhan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views10 pages

Case Observation Report - III: Course Code - MLB303

This case observation report summarizes a petition filed by Dr. Bharti Talk against the National Board of Examination regarding transparency in the DNB final theory examination. The petitioner appeared for the exam 7 times but failed to pass. She argued that there is no transparency in the exam process and sought re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The respondent argued that candidates have no legal right to seek re-evaluation under the board's rules. The court directed counseling for the petitioner and showed her previous answer sheets. However, the petitioner refused counseling and demanded to see only her own sheets.

Uploaded by

AroojKhan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

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

You might also like