Plea in Delhi HC Challenges DNB Admission Restrictions, NBE Response Sought
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: Issuing a notice to the National Board of Examination (NBE), the Delhi High Court has sought its response to a plea challenging the restrictive clause preventing candidates from enrolling in any Diplomate of National Board (DNB) course for two years after resigning from a post-diploma DNB program.
In its order dated January 17, 2025, the HC bench comprising Dinesh Kumar Sharma demanded a response from NBE by January 23, 2025, on whether the contested rule infringed on the fundamental rights.
The order stated, "Issue notice to respondent no.1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 23.01.2025."
The plea was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Clause 2.6 of the 2024 handbook for admission to Post Diploma DNB courses issued by the NBE. The petitioner's counsel submitted that this clause restricted candidates who resign or discontinue from a DNB Post Diploma Course from joining any other DNB course for two years.
Also Read: Applying for MCC NEET PG Counselling 2024 for DNB Admissions! Here are all details
As per the latest media report by Law Trend, the petitioner had to resign from a DNB course in Chhattisgarh due to alleged verbal abuse and torturous conditions that made the continuation to the said course untenable.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Tanvi Dubey, submitted that he had duly raised a complaint regarding the alleged verbal abuse and torture but no action was taken by authorities," PTI has reported.
He, therefore, argued that the rule should be declared unconstitutional, and the petitioner must be permitted to participate in future DNB counselling or examinations as and despite being a meritorious student, he was unjustly suffering.
"That the respondent No. 1 by not allowing the petitioner to participate in the further round of counselling or to allow him to register for DNB-PDCET examination next year, failed to appreciate the reasons for his resignation were beyond his control and the fact that he joined the seat by paying Rs. 1,25,000 as the yearly fee, itself shows the bonafide intention of the petitioner to continue with the course," the plea submitted.
The petitioner contended that the rule denying him a chance to partake in future DNB counselling or examinations was unconstitutional. He argued that despite his meritorious academic standing and having paid a Rs 1,25,000 yearly fee, his resignation was a forced decision, propelled by an untenable environment and unaddressed complaints of mistreatment.
"However, due to torturous environment which the petitioner was subjected to, he had no other option but to resign. Even before resigning he made attempts to address the situation. However, no cognisance was taken by the authorities on the same," the plea submitted.
Referring to Clause 2.6, the petitioner's counsel argued that it was arbitrary, as it violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and disregarded exceptional circumstances like verbal abuse and torture faced by by the petitioner at the allocated hospital.
It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner had duly raised the complaint regarding verbal abuse and torture and despite this, no action was taken by the authorities. Accordingly, the counsel submitted that the rule was required to be declared unconstitutional and the petitioner may be permitted to participate in future DNB counselling or examinations.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-order-270287.pdf
Also Read: Delhi HC orders removal of Deepfake Videos featuring Medanta Chief Dr Naresh Trehan
