Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Shyamsundar s/o Kashiram Patil, a medical practitioner with an M.D. (Medicine) degree, applied for the D.M. (Doctor of Medicine) entrance exam conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) for the year 2023. He had previously qualified in the 2022 exam but did not join the allotted college. For the 2023 exam, he uploaded all required documents and received an admit card. The examination was scheduled on 29.09.2023 at a center in Hyderabad. On the day of the exam, the petitioner appeared for biometric verification. He was unable to provide his left thumb impression because his left hand was bandaged due to an injury. The biometric system required a left thumb impression, and the petitioner offered to provide his right thumb impression or any other identification, but the authorities refused. Consequently, he was not allowed to take the exam. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct his examination or restrain the declaration of results. The court considered the facts and submissions. The petitioner argued that the inability to provide the left thumb impression was due to a genuine medical reason and not an attempt at impersonation. The respondents contended that the biometric verification process is mandatory to prevent impersonation and that the petitioner should have informed them in advance. The court held that the petitioner's difficulty was genuine and that the respondents should have exercised discretion to allow him to take the exam using alternative identification. The court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh examination for the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order, and to declare the result accordingly. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Headnote
A) Medical Education - NEET-SS Examination - Biometric Verification - Technical Glitch - The petitioner, a medical practitioner, was unable to provide his left thumb impression for biometric verification due to a bandage on his left hand. The court held that this was a genuine technical difficulty and not an attempt at impersonation, and directed the respondents to conduct a re-examination for the petitioner. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Discretion of Examining Body - Re-examination - The court held that the respondents' refusal to allow the petitioner to appear or provide a re-examination was not justified, as the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of being allowed to take the examination. The court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh examination for the petitioner within two weeks. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was unable to provide his left thumb impression for biometric verification due to a bandage on his left hand, should be denied the opportunity to take the NEET-SS 2023 examination, and whether the respondents' refusal to allow him to appear or provide a re-examination is justified.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh examination for the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order and to declare the result accordingly. The petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Technical glitch
- biometric verification
- left thumb impression
- genuine difficulty
- impersonation
- re-examination
- natural justice
- administrative discretion
