Doctor challenges 'arbitrary' revaluation clause in DNB exam- Delhi HC issues notice to NBE, Centre

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the National Board of Examination (NBE) and the Centre on a plea filed by a DNB trainee doctor from Gangaram Hospital challenging the evaluation rules in the Diplomate National Board exam. The petitioner argued that the current clause allows revaluation only if an answer is wrongly marked “not attempted,” leaving no scope to challenge 'arbitrary' evaluation. She claimed her answer sheets showed discrepancies, and denial of revaluation had unjustly barred her from the practical exam, jeopardizing her career. According to PTI report, considering the matter, the Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the response of the National Board of Examination on a doctor's plea seeking revaluation in the Diplomate National Board examination. Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice to the National Board of Examination and the Centre on the petition filed by a Diplomate National Board trainee doctor at Gangaram Hospital in Delhi. The court asked the NBE counsel to get instructions and posted the matter for August 29. Also Read:NBE Extends Thesis Submission Deadline for DrNB Super Speciality Final Exam October 2025 The petitioner has challenged the "arbitrary" condition in the August 14 notice and in clause 5.3 of the information bulletin which allows revaluation only in a rare event of an answer being wrongly marked as "not attempted" by the assessor. The petitioner, represented through advocate Tanvi Dubey, said such a condition precludes revaluation in any other circumstance including the present one in which the evaluation has been done "arbitrarily and due to the negligent and unfair evaluation, there is a substantial difference in the actual and expected score of the petitioner". The petitioner claimed her answer sheets showed a clear case of discrepancy, however, there was no yardstick to ensure transparency since a revaluation option was not available. The plea said the clause allowing revaluation only in cases of unattempted questions was "totally vitiated" as it closed all the room for the petitioner to raise any grievances against any discrepancies in her answer key. It said the petitioner was only seeking an option of revaluation and not grace marks and denial of proper evaluation has caused irreparable prejudice to her, who despite her earnest academic effort, has been unjustly declared unsuccessful in the theory examination. "As a consequence, she has been deprived of her right to appear in the practical examination, which not only wastes her years of academic training but also adversely affects her professional career and future prospects," the plea said.