Bombay High Court Quashes National Board of Examinations Communication Refusing to Register Doctors as DNB Trainees for July 2010 Session. The Court held that the Board was bound by its own guidelines and earlier court orders directing consideration of candidates who passed CET prior to modification of admission criteria, and could not deny registration after the institute made admissions on merit.

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the National Board of Examination's communication refusing to register the petitioners as DNB trainees for the July 2010 session.

Quashing of the communication dated 14 June 2011 and a direction to the National Board of Examinations to register the petitioners as DNB trainees for the July 2010 session in Radiology, ENT, and Paediatrics.

The National Board of Examinations refused to register the petitioners as DNB trainees after they had been selected by Nanavati Hospital, paid fees, and completed documentation, on the ground that the hospital had conducted interviews in violation of the revised admission guidelines.

Earlier writ petitions (WP(L) No. 1483 & 1485 of 2010) challenged the change in admission guidelines; the Division Bench by judgment dated 16 July 2010 upheld the new rules but directed the Board to consider making provision for candidates who passed the qualifying exam prior to June 2010. Subsequent orders dated 9 September 2010 and 14 September 2010 granted interim relief to some students.

Whether the communication dated 14 June 2011 by the National Board of Examinations refusing to consider the petitioners for registration as DNB trainees was arbitrary and illegal. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be registered as DNB trainees for the July 2010 session having been selected by the Third Respondent institute in accordance with the admission guidelines.

Petitioners contended that they were selected on the basis of CET marks as required by the new guidelines; the interviews were merely to verify original documents and not to assess aptitude, and the Board's refusal to register them was arbitrary and capricious. National Board of Examinations argued that Nanavati Hospital had conducted interviews which contravened the June 2010 guidelines, as admissions were to be based solely on CET marks, and therefore the admissions were irregular. Nanavati Hospital submitted that though interviews were held, the admissions were ultimately granted on the basis of CET marks in compliance with the guidelines, and the Board's objections were unjustified given the confusion and the pending court proceedings.

1. The National Board of Examinations, having prescribed admission guidelines, is bound by them. 2. Where an accredited institute admits students strictly on merit based on CET marks as per the guidelines, and the students have participated in the selection process and paid fees, the Board cannot subsequently deny registration on the ground that the institute conducted interviews, especially when the admissions were ultimately based on CET marks and the candidates were not at fault. 3. The Board is obliged to comply with judicial orders directing consideration of candidates who passed the qualifying examination before the rule change.

the Board cannot turn around and deny registration to those candidates who have been admitted in the institution in accordance with the admission guidelines that were sought to be enforced by the Board. the Petitioners before the Court had an infinite capacity to suffer on account of the varied courses of action that were adopted from time to time. the Board has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to register the Petitioners as DNB trainees. the Petitioners are entitled to be registered as DNB trainees for the Session of July 2010 in the disciplines of Radiology, ENT and Paediatrics.

Prior to June 2010, admission to DNB programme was based on aptitude tests by institutes. On 5 July 2010, NBE notified new guidelines making CET marks the sole criterion. Candidates who had passed CET earlier challenged the change. A Division Bench by order dated 16 July 2010 upheld the new rules but directed consideration for pre-June 2010 qualifiers. Further orders on 23 July 2010, 9 September 2010, and 14 September 2010 granted interim relief. Nanavati Hospital issued an advertisement on 2 June 2010 and conducted interviews on 22 July 2010, but prepared a merit list based on CET and directed fee payment by 31 July 2010. Complaints led to NBE raising objections about the interview process. Despite clarification from the hospital that admissions were on CET marks, NBE issued the impugned communication on 14 June 2011 refusing to register the petitioners. The present writ petitions were filed thereafter.

• Constitution of India: Article 226