Principle of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel Not Applicable in Academics

Shaunak Choudhury | SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 26^th May 2020

Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak v. National Board of Examinations W.P. (C) 3005/2020 

Facts

The Petitioners in this case are final year students of the Diplomate of National Board from across the country. The Respondent is the National Board of Examinations which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India, established in 1975 to standardize and regulate the post-graduation medical education and examination in India. On 4^th April 2020, the NBE issued a Public Notice that extended the training period by six weeks, for the final year students whose period was to end between 1^st April 2020 and 30^th June 2020. The Petitioners argued that the NBE had no authority to extend the period for training and it can do so only under specific request due to medical or unavoidable circumstances. The extension would also impact the career prospects of the final year students as they had already gotten jobs and only awaited their Certificate of Training. The decision was also called discriminatory as the first and second year students were not given similar directions. The Petitioners repudiated the reason given by the Respondents (the COVID-19 lockdown) for this action because the Medical Council of India did not exempt any doctors in their super specialty training. The Respondents urged that the extension had to be laid down since new candidates were not able to give their entrance exams for the DNB programs. Allowing the final year students to leave before infusion of new students would cause a vacuum that would be detrimental to the public health system. They also argued that the NBE hat the power to change the dates on the Information Bulletin. 

Issues

1. Whether the NBE has the authority to change the Information Bulletin.
2. Whether the extension is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
3. Whether the career prospects of the final year students trump the public interest during the pandemic.
4. Whether the principle of legitimate expectation is applicable in the field of academics. 

Judgement

1. The Court observed that “the aim of the NBE is to establish high and uniform standards of medical post-graduate examinations throughout the country”. The NBE is independent of the MCI and thus just because the MCI has exempted D.M and M.Ch trainees from detention during lockdown, does not mean that the NBE must follow suit. If the NBE does not have the power to provide for variation in the duration and content of its training programs then the purpose of the body will be lost. In Dr. Rajat Duhan v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11437) the Delhi High Court observed that the principle of promissory estoppel does not exist for educational institutions since they deal with a dynamic sector that needs improvements.  The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in National Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy (2006 (5) SCC 515). As per several Bulletins issued by the NBE, it was made clear that the body maintained the rights to modify the Bulletin. 
2. There was no discrimination seen between the different years of students which would violate Article 14. Since the classification was on the basis of the year that the students were in, the Court found that the classification was made on the grounds of intelligible differentia. There was also nexus between the classification and the object, since the final year students would be leaving the training and the 1^st and 2^nd year students would only be promoted. 
3. The Court asserted that during a pandemic, doctors cannot seek the trampling of public interest for their own private interest. 
4. The Court looked at Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar v. State of Maharashtra (1991 SCC OnLine 384) for this issue. The Supreme Court had opined that the field of academics cannot be compared to some commercial activity which is profit seeking. A student cannot have legitimate expectation for the continuity of some benefit that has been conferred to him through a government order. Seeing that training of the students has been impacted due to the COVID-19 crisis, the NBE wishes to maintain that same level of training by extending the period. Hence the principle is not applicable here.

The Court finally opined that such administrative decisions of a body that has the power to take them cannot come under judicial review. Matters of academic judgement are not for the courts to entertain as said in Ashutosh Bharti v. Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (MANU/DE/0024/2005).

Thus, the petitions were disposed and the actions of the NBE were found to be legitimate and within its powers.