India News | Integrity of High-stakes Exams Depends on Candidates, Examining Bodies: Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], August 20 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has emphasised that maintaining the integrity of high-stakes examinations cannot be the responsibility of candidates alone, holding that examining authorities are equally accountable for ensuring that the rules governing admissions are effectively implemented.

"Neither can the candidates take the system for granted, nor can the system take the candidates for granted," Justice Jasmeet Singh observed while dismissing a petition challenging the cancellation of a doctor's candidature for an FNB Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship.

Also Read | Evergrande Founder Hui Ka Yan Sentenced to Life in Prison.

The Court said the case was a reminder that the integrity of such examination systems is a "shared responsibility" and proceeded to examine the conduct of both the candidate and the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS).

Justice Singh held that the petitioner was not eligible for the FET-2024 admission cycle as she had not acquired the prescribed DrNB Cardiology qualification by the December 31, 2024 cut-off date.

Also Read | iQOO Buds Price in India, Specifications and Features Revealed.

The Court noted that her DrNB final examination was conducted only in January 2025 and the provisional pass certificate was issued on May 29, 2025. Therefore, the subsequent acquisition of the qualification could not retrospectively make her eligible for the earlier admission cycle.

The Court also took serious note of the particulars furnished by the petitioner during the admission process. It recorded that she had entered December 31, 2024 as her "PG Year of Passing" in the FET application, despite not having qualified the DrNB examination by then.

The Court further noted that the same date was subsequently entered during the OPJR process and that the petitioner's self-appraisal also contained an affirmation that she had fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria.

"On no fewer than three occasions," the petitioner represented that she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria as on December 31, 2024, the Court observed, adding that such conduct could not be permitted to provide an equitable advantage.

The Court rejected the argument that the matter was merely one of delayed qualification.

It said a cut-off date is an essential component of a competitive examination because it determines the class of candidates eligible to participate in a particular admission cycle.

"If the petitioner's argument were accepted, the prescribed cut-off would cease to have any real meaning," the Court observed, holding that permitting candidates who acquire the qualification after the cut-off to enter the same cycle would also be unfair to those who complied with the prescribed requirements.

At the same time, the Court strongly criticised NBEMS for failing to detect the discrepancy earlier.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been allowed to proceed through the FET, counselling, seat allotment, joining and provisional registration stages before the discrepancy in her qualification was detected.

This, according to the Court, raised "serious concerns regarding the robustness of the verification mechanism".

"The responsibility of an institution entrusted with the academic future of thousands of candidates cannot end with prescribing rules; those rules must also be effectively implemented," Justice Singh observed.

The Court noted that the petitioner had disclosed that she had joined the DrNB course on April 16, 2022. Given that the course was of three years' duration, NBEMS had information from which it could have ascertained that she could not have completed the qualification by December 31, 2024.

Despite this, she was permitted to continue the fellowship for more than nine months.

The Court observed that such delay was particularly concerning because the matter involved the career of a medical professional. It said the lapse on the part of NBEMS could not be overlooked and directed the examination body to pay Rs 10,000 as a measure of institutional accountability.

The Court, however, held that the delay by NBEMS did not create a right in favour of the petitioner.

It said the provisional verification by the hospital, allotment of the seat and the period of training could not cure the petitioner's underlying ineligibility. The governing rules specifically permitted cancellation if ineligibility was detected at a later stage.

The Court also rejected the argument that the availability of vacant seats should allow the petitioner to continue.

While acknowledging that keeping seats vacant does not benefit anyone, it said the petitioner's candidature was "tainted with irregularity" and that allowing the vacant seat to be used in such circumstances would amount to "putting a premium on dishonest conduct".

The Court further rejected the petitioner's reliance on relaxations granted to COVID-19 affected candidates in the NEET-SS examination, observing that NEET-SS and FET are separate examinations governed by different eligibility conditions and admission schedules.

It consequently upheld NBEMS's decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature and dismissed the petition.

Before concluding, the Court stressed the wider significance of maintaining fairness in professional examinations, particularly in medicine, where a limited number of super-speciality seats are contested by a large number of qualified doctors.

"Merit loses its meaning if the process through which it is determined is compromised," the Court observed.

The Court imposed a cost of Rs 1,000 on the petitioner and Rs 10,000 on NBEMS, with the latter intended to underline the need for greater diligence, care and responsibility in examination, counselling and verification processes.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Shivendra Singh, Ankur Sood, Kaushik Mishra, Shailesh K Rajora, Aryama Singh Rajput, Vishvajeet Singh Rana and Deepshikha Kumar.

NBEMS was represented by advocates Waize Ali Noor, Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Varun Rajawat and Zillur Rahman. (ANI)

(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)