The Bombay High Court held that the refusal of the authorities to permit the Petitioner to enter the examination hall without the certificate and declining entry to him beyond the security check point while carrying the mobile instrument containing the soft copy of the certificate, cannot be faulted. The Court noted that as a result of technological advancement and development, there are instances when students have resorted to various methods/tactics of manufacturing admit cards, identity cards, hacking websites and carrying air-pods or electronic earbuds in the examination hall, in order to resort to malpractices in the examinations.

In that context, the Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y.G Khobragade observed that "We are reminded of the movie 'Munnabhai MBBS', and it would not be too much to say that there are several candidates who resort to such practices".

Advocate S. S. Tope appeared for the Petitioner, whereas DSGI A. G. Talhar appeared for the Respondent.

“Had the Petitioner carried the Medical Registration certificate, there was no embargo for him to enter the examination hall. Therefore, laches cannot attributed to the Respondent authorities and it could only be said that the Petitioner should blame himself for having failed in strictly following the standing instructions for the students”, the Court held.

The brief facts of the case were that the Petitioner has acquired the qualification of M.D. (Medicine) from the Grant Medical College, and commenced his medical practice in Latur. He applied for the D.M. (Doctor of Medicine) entrance exam in 2022 and succeeded in the said entrance test for a super specialty post. Since he was not comfortable in joining the college that was allotted to him, he decided not to join the said college and re-appear for the same examination in 2023. In that second exam, while seeking entry into the exam hall, noticing that he was not carrying the permanent registration certificate issued by the Medical Council, he was denied entrance.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the Petitioner did not carry the photostat hard copy of his registration with the Medical Council and he had purportedly made an attempt to fetch his cellular phone in order to show to the authorities a picture of his registration certificate.

The Bench explained that a cellular phone is not permitted beyond the security point, and it was impossible for a candidate to travel with any electronic gadget crossing the security point right up to the examination centre in order to enter the examination room or hall.

Thus, the Bench noted that no ulterior/oblique motives could be attributed to the second Respondent in denying entry to the Petitioner.

Had the Petitioner carried the Medical Registration certificate, there was no embargo for him to enter the examination hall. Therefore, laches cannot attributed to the Respondent authorities and it could only be said that the Petitioner should blame himself for having failed in strictly following the standing instructions for the students.

No doubt, he may not have done this deliberately, since he does not derive any advantage, and failure to carry the Medical Registration certificate, was never an advantage to him, added the Bench.

However, since no attributes are visible which would taint the conduct of the authorities, the High Court clarified that directing the authorities to hold a fresh examination only for the Petitioner in the present fact situation, would not be reasonable and appropriate.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Dr. Shyamsundar v. Union of India and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: BHC-AUG:24875-DB]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Bombay High CourtJustice Ravindra V. GhugeJustice Y.G. Khobragade

Pankaj Bajpai