Several candidates resort to malpractices in medical examinations and this reminds of “Munnabhai MBBS” movie, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court said while refusing relief to a person who was not permitted to appear for the NEET exam as he did not have a required document.
A division bench of Justices R V Ghuge and Y G Khobragade in its October 31 judgment dismissed the petition filed by a 49-year-old doctor Shyamsundar Patil seeking a direction to the National Board of Examinations to hold the National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Super Specialty 2023 exam for him.
Patil was not permitted to enter the examination centre at Hyderabad in September as he did not have a physical copy of his permanent registration certificate issued by the Medical Council.
Patil claimed that he had a copy of the same on his phone but since mobile phones were prohibited in the exam centres, he was not allowed to enter.
The bench, however, said the authorities cannot be faulted.
The court said 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.
“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. There are instances when the results of the NEET-UG and PG exams are hacked by hackers, results are manufactured and higher scores in the examination results are published on such fictitious websites,” the court said.
It added that the examination authority had been consistently informing the candidates as to what documents they should be carrying along with them to the examination hall and which are the electronic instruments and gadgets that are to be left behind and are not to be carried to the hall.
Also Read
The purpose behind this mechanism is to ensure that the examination is conducted in a fair manner and that a proxy candidate or a candidate resorting to unfair means does not participate in the examination, it added.
The bench noted that the petitioner had not carried a copy of his registration certificate and had relied on showing it on his mobile phone at the examination centre and hence laches cannot be attributed to the authorities.
“Had the petitioner carried the Medical Registration certificate, there was no embargo for him to enter the examination hall. Therefore, 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 said.
The bench said it would not be reasonable and appropriate to direct the authorities to hold a fresh examination only for the petitioner.
