Delhi High Court Says Candidates and Authorities Both Must Protect Integrity of High-Stakes Exams
The Delhi High Court has observed that candidates and examination authorities share responsibility for maintaining the credibility and integrity of high-stakes competitive and professional examinations.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while dismissing the plea of Dr. Sanchari Ghosh against cancellation of her candidature for the National Board Fellowship in Cardiac Electrophysiology.
Doctor Challenged Cancellation of Fellowship Candidature
The case, titled Dr Sanchari Ghosh v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences & Anr, arose from a decision dated May 22, 2026 by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences cancelling Dr. Ghosh's candidature for the FNB Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship.
Dr. Ghosh had secured rank 14 in the Fellowship Entrance Test and was allotted a fellowship seat at Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bengaluru.
She joined the fellowship programme on August 18, 2025 and had completed more than nine months of training before NBEMS detected that she had not satisfied the prescribed eligibility condition.
Eligibility Required Qualification by December 31, 2024
Rule 10 of the common norms governing admission to FNB Fellowship Courses through FET-2024 required candidates to possess the prescribed postgraduate qualification by December 31, 2024.
However, Dr. Ghosh's final examination for DrNB Cardiology was conducted only in January 2025, while her provisional pass certificate was issued on May 29, 2025.
Despite this, she entered December 31, 2024 as her "PG Year of Passing" in the FET online application and during the registration process.
Court Finds Misrepresentation of Eligibility
The High Court observed that Dr. Ghosh had represented on multiple occasions that she fulfilled the eligibility requirements for appearing in the Fellowship Entrance Test.
The Court held that she could not seek equitable relief merely because she had subsequently joined the fellowship and undergone more than nine months of training.
Rule Allowed Cancellation if Ineligibility Was Detected Later
The Court referred to Rule 9 of the FET rules, which permitted cancellation of candidature where NBEMS subsequently discovered that a candidate was ineligible to appear for the examination.
The Court also rejected the argument that COVID-related delays prevented timely verification of eligibility.
Delhi High Court Also Pulls Up NBEMS
While holding the candidate responsible for incorrectly representing her eligibility, the Court also criticised NBEMS for failing to detect the issue at an earlier stage.
Dr. Ghosh had stated in her application that she had joined her three-year DrNB Cardiology course on April 16, 2022.
Despite the information available in the application, NBEMS permitted her to appear in the examination, participate in counselling, join the fellowship and complete more than nine months of training.
Court Emphasises Importance of Exam Integrity
The High Court stressed that competitive and professional examinations in India have serious consequences for candidates and cannot be treated as routine academic exercises.
The Court noted that millions of students spend years preparing for such examinations and that their results may determine the direction of their professional careers.
The issue assumes even greater significance in medical education because superspeciality seats are limited while a large number of qualified doctors compete for them.
Responsibility Lies With Both Candidates and Exam Authorities
In its August 18 order, the Court said the case demonstrated the need for responsibility to be shared by all participants in the examination process.
Candidates are expected to provide accurate information and comply with eligibility requirements, while examination authorities are expected to verify applications diligently and identify defects before candidates progress through counselling and training.
Key Findings of the Delhi High Court
- Candidates and examination authorities share responsibility for exam integrity.
- Dr. Ghosh did not possess the required qualification by the prescribed cut-off date.
- The Court found that incorrect eligibility information had been provided in the application process.
- Completion of nine months of fellowship did not create a vested right to continue.
- NBEMS should have identified the eligibility defect much earlier.
- High-stakes medical examinations require greater institutional diligence.
Costs Imposed on Both Doctor and NBEMS
The Delhi High Court dismissed Dr. Ghosh's challenge to the cancellation of her fellowship candidature.
The Court said the costs imposed on NBEMS were intended to promote greater institutional accountability and highlight the need for diligence during examination, counselling and verification stages.
Court Calls for Greater Institutional Accountability
The judgment underlines that errors by examination authorities can create serious consequences not only for individual candidates but also for the credibility of the entire selection system.
The Court therefore emphasised that verification of eligibility should not be treated as a mechanical exercise, particularly where limited professional seats are allocated through competitive examinations.
Lawyers Appearing in the Matter
For Dr. Sanchari Ghosh: Advocates Shivendra Singh, Ankur Sood, Kaushik Mishra, Shailesh K Rajora, Aryama Singh Rajput, Vishvajeet Singh Rana and Deepshikha Kumar.
For NBEMS: Advocates Waize Ali Noor, Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Varun Rajawat and Zillur Rahman.
