Delve into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court regarding the internship completion deadline for NEET-PG 2022. The case highlights the importance of balancing policy decisions with academic integrity, shedding light on the complexities of student hardship issues within the education system.
Facts
- The petitioners argued that the sudden change in exam pattern and syllabus for NEET-PG 2022-23 adversely affected their preparation.
- They contended that such changes should have been notified well in advance to allow adequate preparation time.
- The petitioners highlighted that the changes were announced only 70 days before the examination, causing undue stress and prejudice to aspirants.
- They also pointed out that the sudden changes unfairly disadvantaged candidates who had been preparing based on the previous pattern and syllabus.
- The petitioners sought appropriate relief to ensure a level playing field for all aspirants appearing for NEET-PG 2022-23.
- Internship completion certificate must be submitted at the time of counselling/admission to the allotted medical college
- Internship should have been completed by 31 May 2022
- Court permitted petitioners to submit a representation to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for a deadline extension
- National Board of Examination extended the cut-off date for internship completion to 31 July 2022
- Petitioners are aggrieved by the revised cut-off date
- Certain States’ students may still be excluded due to the extended cut-off date
- Union Government authorized States/UTs to deploy medical interns in Covid management duties on 3 May 2021
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel for the petitioners, argued for extending the internship completion deadline for NEET-PG 2022 to accommodate students who started their internships late due to Covid duties in states like Kerala, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir.
- The Additional Solicitor General explained the challenges in extending the deadline and the potential disruptions to the schedule if the request is granted.
- An alternative suggestion was to consider the period spent on Covid duties as part of the internship requirements, but the Additional Solicitor General raised concerns about the impact on the educational curriculum and the need for students to assist with Covid-related services.
- The Court had requested the Solicitor General to seek the views of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to further assist in the matter.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The determination of the cut-off date is within the executive’s sphere and not the court’s.
- Policy decisions are made by the executive based on prevailing circumstances.
- The petition in Rachna v. Union of India sought an additional attempt for Civil Services Exam 2020 due to Covid-19 difficulties.
- Judicial interference in student hardship issues may have unintended consequences on the education system.
- In Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the court held that cut-off dates or age limits are not arbitrary based on certain candidates falling on the wrong side.
- Courts should be cautious in reviewing academic policies, as seen in Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur v. Soutrik Sarangi.
- In State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, the requirement for Assistant Professors to have three years of experience was upheld.
- The cut-off date is not arbitrary unless it is shown to be unreasonable, capricious, or whimsical.
- The Court declined to further extend the cut-off date beyond 31 July 2022, in order to avoid disrupting the educational schedule for other students.
- The decision to postpone the examination and not disturb the schedule was based on the different circumstances compared to previous postponements.
- Petitioners were advised not to seek writ jurisdiction for specific policy relaxations, leaving the decision to expert agencies of the Union of India.
- Court suggested petitioners submit representations to the Union Government for relief, a function not to be assumed by the Court.
- Refusing to issue directions that could prejudice students who meet the 31 July 2022 cut-off, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining academic schedules.
- Citing precedent in Poulami Mondal & Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors., where INI CET was postponed, the Court considered the present circumstances different.
- Rejecting the prayer to include Covid duty within internship requirements, the Court avoided micro-managing medical course curriculums.
- Concerns over lockdown restrictions impacting candidates’ ability to reach exam centers and doctors needing to quarantine due to Covid-19 exposure were acknowledged.
- Court’s considerations regarding the extension of internship completion deadline fell within the policy domain, as noted in a previous order dated 8 February 2022.
- Exclusion due to fixing a cut-off date is incidental and not arbitrary
- Examination conducted during a pandemic with strict lockdowns in place
- Not appropriate to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
Decision
- The pending application has been disposed of
- The petition has been dismissed
Case Title: SHIKHAR Vs. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION (2022 INSC 390)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000208 / 2022
