Delhi High Court awards one extra mark to candidates for incorrect question in FMGE December 2020

In view of an incorrect question in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) held in December 2020, the Delhi High Court on Monday ordered that all candidates who answered the question incorrectly, should be awarded one extra mark (Association Of MD Physicians vs. National Board of Examinations)..The order was passed by Justice Prateek Jalan on a plea by Association Of MD Physicians contending that one of the questions in FMGE question paper of December 2020 was erroneous. The Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and ordered the following:"All candidates must be awarded one mark in lieu of the disputed question."However, candidates who had marked option (c) for the disputed question have already been given the required mark and no change is required in their marks, the Court added. "To give them an additional grace mark would in fact reward them doubly for one incorrect question in the question paper. The candidates whose answer to the disputed question was marked incorrect, however, must be reassessed with one extra mark," the Court made it clear. .FMGs are doctors who have obtained their primary medical degrees equivalent to MBBS from outside India.They become eligible to practice medicine in India only if they clear Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE)..The petitioner, an association of Indian citizens holding degrees in Medicine from foreign universities, had approached the High Court pointing out that the FMGE of December 2020 had a question which had no correct answer among the multiples options. .The question read:“Sample Registration System (SRS) gives information about all except:a) Birth rateb) Death ratec) Maternal Mortality rated) Infant mortality rate.”.The petitioner contended that the disputed question was technically incorrect as the SRS gives information about all the four parameters mentioned..The respondent, National Board of Examinations submitted that the FMGE questions undergo both pre-examination verification and post examination validation and the disputed question has been reviewed by eight experts in the field of community medicine at various stages..The Court then examined an affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (RGI) on the question of whether the Sample Registration System includes or does not include Maternal Mortality Ratio.The affidavit clearly said that Sample Registration System includes Maternal Mortality Ratio..The NBE, however, countered by stating that the RGI is not an expert in community medicine nor in the conduct of the FMGE, and the information supplied by them is general. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted over the views of experts..The Court first answered the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and interfere with examinations. In this regard, it referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh where the Court considered Kanpur University vs. Samir and observed, "The jurisprudence with regard to interference with examinations does not mandate a “complete hands-off or no-interference approach” but admits of interference in “rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent.".Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that despite the Court’s limited jurisdiction, none of the judgments cited prohibit judicial review altogether. They do leave open a window for challenge, albeit a very small one, in the event that the candidate discharges the onus of showing that a question is patently erroneous..On the merits of the case, the Court found that the petitioner succeeded in showing that the NBE committed a glaring mistake in setting the question and the same justifies judicial intervention..The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the RGI is not an expert in community medicine."RGI is certainly an expert on the question of what is and what is not part of the SRS. It is indeed surprising that an academic body like the NBE should take such an extreme position. This attitude displays an unfortunate determination to persist in an error, rather than an open minded approach, which should inform all academic enterprise," the Court said. .The High Court placed reliance on the judgement in Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi to decide the nature of relief to be granted in the current dispute.It was found that the most appropriate resolution would be to award one mark in lieu of the disputed question to every candidate who answered the question incorrectly."The respondent is directed to treat the disputed question (set out in paragraph 4 above) as deleted from the FMGE (December 2020), and to award one extra mark to those candidates who were assessed as having answered it incorrectly. In the event any candidate thus achieves the passing score of 150 marks, they would be treated as having passed the FMGE (December 2020)," the Court ordered. .Advocate Adit S Pujari appeared for the Petitioners and the Respondents were represented by Advocate Ruchira Gupta.