The Delhi High Court May 26 dismissed a plea challenging the decision of National Board of Examination (NBE) to extend during the COVID-19 pandemic training of doctors, who are in the final year of training of the Diplomate of National Board (DNB), saying it cannot interfere in the decision of a body of experts.

For our comprehensive coverage and latest updates on COVID-19 click here.

The Justice said the Public Notice of NBE is neither discriminatory nor does it suffer from any uncertainty as the extension of training has been provided for six weeks and till further notice, which clearly is predicated on the intensity of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The NBE, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was established to improve the quality of medical education and it conducts postgraduate and postdoctoral examinations. The degree awarded by NBE is called Diplomate of National Board. DNB is a postgraduate or postdoctoral diploma in which the training lasts for three years and FNB is a fellowship in a sub-speciality where the training lasts for two years. The petitioners were resident doctors in the third/final year of the training of the DNB course, conducted by the NBE. They joined the DNB course between April and June 2017 and were scheduled to complete their training between April and June this year.

The doctors challenged the NBE's notice which states that their training has been adversely impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and it has been decided to extend the period of training of all DNB/FNB students, whose tenures were ending between April 1 and June 30, 2020, in all specialities, by six weeks and until further notice.

The high court said the petition was without merit and devoid of any force. It was abundantly clear that BE is vested with supervening powers which include extension of training period in extraordinary or special circumstances, the judge said. Regarding the submission of doctors that extension of the training period has adversely impacted their professional career or career options, the high court observed that there are certain situations in which the usual parameters of professional advancement cannot be applied.

In times of a severe pandemic, doctors cannot seek that a vested personal interest be placed above public interest, as they are the only ones who can take care of patients with their skills and aptitude. Such expectations are not legitimate, even if the principle of legitimate expectation was applicable to education, which it is not, it said.

It added, Today, we are faced with a situation that is unprecedented and with no parallel except for the Spanish Flu epidemic of a hundred years ago. In such conditions, the decision of NBE to extend the training of the petitioners can by no stretch be described as malafide or perverse. Therefore, this plea of the petitioners, also fails to impress.

The high court said since NBE is concerned with the standard of training and the attainment of the candidates after such training, it is fully justified in taking the view that due to the limited operation of all departments, to focus on COVID-19 patients, the training of the petitioners and others, who have completed their tenure between April 1 and June 30, has been adversely impacted.

Such a decision cannot come under judicial review, as that is the decision of a body of experts in the field. Considerations of personal advancement cannot also be the reason to overturn a rational policy decision taken by a body empowered to make that decision, it said. The plea said the two orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on March 24 and April 15 clarified that there would be no discontinuance of work in hospitals or treatment of patients, during the COVID-19 pandemic or imposition of lockdown by the government.

The petitioner's counsel said therefore, the main ground on which the notice was issued by NBE that training of DNB/FNB residents has been adversely impacted by the pandemic, is a sham ground . The high court was informed by the Centre's counsel that the availability of petitioner doctors in the hospitals, where they are undergoing training, was essential at this time because if their training is allowed to be completed, there will be an exodus of 3156 doctors. The counsel said it could adversely impact the treatment of patients, be it COVID sufferers and others, during the pandemic.