Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8994       OF 2012 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.5501 OF 2012)  

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS                    APPELLANT

                VERSUS

AMI RAJESH SHAH & ORS.                            RESPONDENTS

WITH C.A.NO.8995  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.12907/2012

WITH C.A.NO.8996  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.16008/2012

WITH C.A.NO.8997  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17027/2012

WITH C.A.NO.8998  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17028/2012

WITH C.A.NO.8999  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17030/2012

WITH C.A.NO.9000  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17034/2012

WITH C.A.NO.9001  OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17031/2012

AND WITH C.A.NO.9002 OF 2012 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.17032/2012

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ  

Petition (L) No.124 of 2011 and connected matters disposed of  

on 28.11.2011.  By the  impugned judgment and order, the High  

Court has granted the reliefs sought by the respondents-doctors  

herein.

3. We have heard Shri M.L.Verma,learned senior counsel  

appearing for the appellant-Board and Shri Shyam Divan, learned

Page 2

2

senior counsel, Shri C.U.Singh, learned senior counsel and Shri  

Subrat Birla, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Shri  Verma,  strenuously,  contends   that  the  

respondent-Hospital has wantonly violated the statutory rules  

framed  by  the  Board,  despite  being  given  sufficient  

opportunities to act in accordance with the guidelines which  

came  to  be  issued  in  July  2010  and,   therefore,   are  not  

entitled to the reliefs sought by them in the Writ Petitions.  

He  would  further  submit  that  since  the  admission  of  the  

respondent-doctors is not in accordance with the rules framed  

by the Board, this Court should take exception to the impugned  

judgment and order passed by the High Court.  

5. Shri Divan, Shri Singh, Shri Thorat and Shri Birla,  

learned counsel for the respondents, ably justify the impugned  

judgment and order.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties to the  

lis, we are of the opinion that there existed a confusion in  

the minds of the students and the hospital while admitting the  

respondents-doctors for the Diplomate of National Board Course  

('DNB course' for short) despite the rules framed by the Board.  

Because of this confusion the students had taken admission in  

the respondent-hospital, though there were rules framed by the  

Board. Be that as it may.

7. Since  the  respondent-doctors  possess  the  necessary  

qualification  and  have  already  taken  admission  in  the

Page 3

3

respondent-college and  have been prosecuting their studies for  

nearly two and a half years out of three years' course,  we  

need not come in the way of students from completing their  

course.  Keeping this in view and in the interest of welfare of  

students, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment  

and order passed by the High Court.

8. Shri M.L. Verma, submits that the rules framed by the  

Board are binding on all the colleges which are accredited to  

the Board.  We do not intend to comment on this issue, since we  

are  granting  relief  to  the  respondent  on  the  principles  of  

equity. Therefore, broad proposition canvassed by the learned  

Senior Counsel is kept open to be agitated in an appropriate  

case.

9. We clarify that the judgment and order passed by the  

High Court need not be treated as a precedent in any other  

case.   

With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.  

There shall be no order to costs.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 13, 2012