Disposed

Pallavi Kar v. National Board of Examination in Medical Science & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/9967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the requirement of two years' training for the FNB fellowship in breast imaging, claiming she was admitted under one-year guidelines. By consent, the court directed her to rejoin Medanta Hospital for a second year of training within four weeks, after which her eligibility for the fellowship would be considered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to complete second year of FNB training at Medanta Hospital by rejoining within four weeks; eligibility for fellowship thereafter.

Pallavi Kar Vs National Board of Examination in… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9967/2023

¶4

PALLAVI KAR

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCE & ORS.

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Varun Rajawat, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Kartik Baijal, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Ms. Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates for R1 Ms. Shyel Trehan and Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla, Advocates for R3

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶12

¶13

O R D E R ( O R A L ) 09.02.2024

¶14

1. Consequent to completion of her MBBS in 2018 and MD in Radiology in 2021, the petitioner applied for grant of the FNB (Fellowship of National Board) fellowship, which is granted by the Respondent 1/National Board of Examination (NBE). She was ranked fourth in the All India Examination conducted by the NBE for grant of FNB, and was required to undergo mandatory training, before being awarded the fellowship, in the Medanta Hospital at Gurugram, which Signature Not Verifiedhas been impleaded as Respondent 3. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.0 2.20 24 16:59W.P.(C) 9967/2023 Page 1 of 4

¶15

2. The petitioner’s training commenced on 6 May 2022.

¶16

3. The case of the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that she was under the impression that, while other FNB courses were of two years duration, the course relating to breast imaging, which she had opted to undergo, was only of one year’s duration. This, in fact, constitutes the crux of the controversy in the present petition.

¶17

4. While the merits of the stand of the petitioner may be arguable, the petitioner was, in fact awarded a completion certificate at the end of her first year training by the Medanta Hospital and was also awarded an admit card for appearing in the final examination for grant of the FNB fellowship.

¶18

5. In the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, their stand is that the applicable Guidelines clearly provided, even at the time when the petitioner obtained admission to the FNB course, that all FNB trainings were to be of two years’ duration. It is stated that, till 2020, the Breast Imaging training was of one year’s duration but that, thereafter, a conscious decision was taken by the NBE to increase the duration of the training to two years. It is for this reason that while, in the Guidelines issued for FNB fellowship for the earlier years, there was a specific stipulation that the fellowship tenure for Breast Imaging would be one year, and that the tenure for other FNB fellowships would be two years, consequent on the decision taken to make the duration of the FNB fellowship training uniformly of two years for all Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.0 2.20 24 16:59W.P.(C) 9967/2023

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

subjects, the revised Guidelines, which applied at the time when the petitioner obtained admission, specifically stipulated that the FNB course would be for two years, without carving out any exception in the case of Breast Imaging.

¶22

6. The requirement of this court having to enter into this legal thicket is obviated by the fact that the Medanta Hospital has graciously agreed to provide the petitioner one more year of training, subject to the petitioner joining training within a period of four weeks.

¶23

7. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NBE has also equally graciously agreed to treat her as eligible for the grant of the FNB fellowship if she completes one more year of training, as she has completed one year already.

¶24

8. Mr. Satya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, is also agreeable to the writ petition being disposed of in these terms.

¶25

9. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to rejoin training with the Medanta Hospital within four weeks from today. If she does so, the Hospital would provide her the second year of training after which she would be considered for grant of the fellowship.

¶26

10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.0 2.20 24 16:59W.P.(C) 9967/2023

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

no orders as to costs.

¶30

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶31

FEBRUARY 9, 2024/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.0 2.20 24 16:59W.P.(C) 9967/2023

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Pallavi Kar v. National Board of Examination in Medical Science & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi Kar v. National Board of Examination in Medical Science & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Times Internet Limited Vs Pcit, DELHI-7 and Ors.

R.P. Basia & Co. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1) Delhi

School of Physical Education and Sports Development, Opjs University Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education Angul Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Oswal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gaurav Verma Vs National Informatics Centre & Anr.

Cipla Limited Vs National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Anr.

Ajay Shukla Vs Union of India & Ors.

School of Physical Education and Sports Development, Opjs University Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education Angul Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Dav College of Teacher Education, Koraput Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Om Prakash Verma Vs National Testing Agency & Anr.

Parth Chadha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Baby Namirah Ayat & Ors. Vs Kulachi Hansraj Model School & Anr.