JUDGMENT : N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to constitute/appoint an independent Expert committee to evaluate the question papers of the both Part I and Part II papers of the said Foreign Medical Graduates Examination conducted on 31.08.2020 for finding out those erroneous questions which are above the Standard of final year MBBS Examination level and to allot appropriate Grace marks to the Petitioners. 1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of through this common order. 2. The relief sought for in all the writ petitions is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute an independent expert committee to evaluate the question papers of both Part I and part II papers of the Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) conducted on 31.08.2020 and to allot grace marks to the petitioners. 3. The 17 petitioners who have approached this Court have obtained medical degrees from various Foreign Medical Universities. The particulars of the degree obtained by the petitioners is captured in the following Tabular column:- S. No. Name University of study Year of passing Awarded Degree 1. Dr. Anand Suriya R.S. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China 2020 M.B.B.S. 2. Dr. Priyanka K. Medical College of Soochow University, China 2020 M.B.B.S. 3. Dr. Princy Deva Kirubai P. National Piragov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytysa, Ukraine. 2017 M.D. (Physician) 4. Dr. Rohini K. Xuzhou Medical University, Jiangsu, China 2019 M.B.B.S. 5. Dr. D. Vendamani Lugansk State Medical University, Pubizhne, Ukraine 2019 M.D. (General Medicine) 6. Dr. Mohd Mohideen Starvopol State 2018 M.D. Abdul Khader Medical University, Starvopol, Russian Federation (General Medicine) 7. Dr. Shalini Ramachandran Shihezi Medical University, Shihezi, China 2018 M.B.B.S. 8. Dr. Sriram Kanamkottil Shaji Tbilisi State Medical University, Georgia 2017 M.D. (Medical Doctor) 9. Dr. Thaslima Nasrin Yerevan Haybusak Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia 2019 M.D. (Physician) 10. Dr. Nabeesh Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia 2016 M.D. (Physician) 11. Dr. Pavithra T. Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China 2020 M.B.B.S. 12. Dr. A. Sebasti Prabha Ovidius Constanta, Constanta, Romania 2013 M.D. (General Medicine) 13. Dr. Manoj Sharma Sakthivel Tianjin medical University, Tianjin, China 2019 M.B.B.S. 14. Dr. Lokanand Teeka Raman Shihezi Medical University, Shihezi, China 2019 M.B.B.S. 15. Dr. Nabeesh Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia 2016 M.D. (Physician) 11. Dr. Pavithra T. Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China 2020 M.B.B.S. 12. Dr. A. Sebasti Prabha Ovidius Constanta, Constanta, Romania 2013 M.D. (General Medicine) 13. Dr. Manoj Sharma Sakthivel Tianjin medical University, Tianjin, China 2019 M.B.B.S. 14. Dr. Lokanand Teeka Raman Shihezi Medical University, Shihezi, China 2019 M.B.B.S. 15. Dr. Tameejul hassan Starvopol State Medical Univeristy, Starvopol, Russian Federation 2019 Doctor (General Medicine) 16. Dr. Sarohini Govintharjan Tianjin Medical university, Tianjin, Chinna 2019 M.B.B.S. 17. Dr. Periannan Kursk State Medical University, Russian Federation 2020 Physician (General Medicine) 4. The petitioners will have to qualify a screening test to register themselves with the State Medical Council in order to practice medicine in India. This mandatory requirement is provided under Section 13(4A) of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The National medical Commission (formerly called as the Medical Council of India) has issued guidelines as required under section 13(4A) of the Act, which resulted in the Screening Test Regulations, 2002. The National Board of Examinations was appointed as the prescribed Authority for conducting the screening tests. This Authority, conducts the test and publishes the result and thereafter, the result is handed over to the National Medical Commission. 5. The Screening test is conducted twice a year during the months of June and December. It can be seen from the above Tabular Column that some of the petitioners have been attempting to pass this examination from the year 2013 onwards. This year due to the pandemic situation, the exams got postponed and it was ultimately conducted only on 31.08.2020. The examination consists of two parts viz. Part I and part II and each part will have 150 questions and the time alloted for each part is 150 minutes. Generally, the 1st part is conducted in the forenoon session and the 2nd part is conducted in the afternoon session. The examination will be in the nature of a Multiple-choice questions. Only those candidates who secure a minimum of 150 marks out of 300 will be considered to be eligible and their names will be displayed in the website maintained by the National Board of examinations. There is no provision for re-totaling or revaluation. There is also no scope for publishing the question paper or the answer key after the examination. Only those candidates who secure a minimum of 150 marks out of 300 will be considered to be eligible and their names will be displayed in the website maintained by the National Board of examinations. There is no provision for re-totaling or revaluation. There is also no scope for publishing the question paper or the answer key after the examination. This is being followed to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and no question bank is built up. In other words, the respondents ensure that the candidates do not get any idea with regard to the pattern of questions that will be asked during the examination. 6. Insofar as the level/Standard of questions, that can be asked during the examinations, it is at the level of the final year M.B.B.S. course. This position was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajeev Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Another, 2005 (1) SCC 45 . The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- 31. However, during the oral submissions in the meeting held on 30.6.2004 the representatives of the petitioners were unanimous in their view that the number of papers in the screening test be reduced to just one, either on the clinical subjects only or if need be with very minor percentage of questions on pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects. For the sake of convenience in conducting the test, the paper can be divided into two parts, the questions on pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects forming part I and the questions on clinical subjects forming part II. A student could be declared as pass if he secured a minimum of 50% marks in both the papers combined. In this scheme the test was to be conducted on the basis of single paper without any facility of grace marks. In case of failure the student is required to attempt the paper again in both the parts of the papers, i.e., in Part I and II. Suggestion from the students that pass percentage be reduced below 50% was not found to be feasible and acceptable as the same had to be in tune with the minimum pass percentage fixed for MBBS examination. National Board of Examinations was to conduct the test and the level of questions put in the examination was to be at the level of final year MBBS only and not at the level of Post Graduate Entrance Examination. 51. National Board of Examinations was to conduct the test and the level of questions put in the examination was to be at the level of final year MBBS only and not at the level of Post Graduate Entrance Examination. 51. Minutes of the meeting held on 30.06.2004 which have been approved by the Government of India and MCI are approved. In future the screening test would be conducted as per the guidelines laid down in the meeting held on 30.06.2004. 7. The above judgment makes it clear that the screening test will be conducted only in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the minutes of the meeting held on 30.06.2004 and these guidelines makes it very clear that the level of questions put in the examination will be at the level of final year M.B.B.S. only and not at the level of Post graduate entrance examination. 8. The petitioners who took the FMG examination secured the following marks:- S. No. Name Roll Number FMG Exam Venue and (Center Code) Marks Scored (Out of 300) 1. Dr. Anand Suriya R.S. 2011103149 Chennai Tamil Nadu (8950) 149 2. Dr. Priyanka K. 2011117107 Trichy, Tamil Nadu (15796) 138 3. Dr. Princy Deva Kirubai P. 2011102687 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8048) 143 4. Dr. Rohini K. 2011110391 Madurai, Tamil Nadu (8773) 133 5. Dr. D. Vendamani 2011102991 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 129 6. Dr. Manoj Sharma, Sakthivel 2011116595 Trichy, Tamil Nadu 8049 127 7. Dr. Nabeesh 2011110010 Madurai, Tamil Nadu (7962) 126 8. Dr. Mohd. Mohideen Abdul Khader 2011110011 Madurai, Tamil Nadu (7962) 126 9. Dr. Shalini Ramachandran 2011102403 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (7981) 125 10. Dr. Sriram Kanamkottil Shaji 2011103375 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 122 11. Dr. Thaslima Nasrin 2011110360 Madurai, Tamil Nadu (8773) 112 12. Dr. Pavithra T. 2011103784 Ernakulam, Kerala (12176) 146 13. Dr. A. Sebasti Prabha 2011101459 Bengaluru, Karnataka (7963) 135 14. Dr. Lokanand Teeka Raman 2011102326 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (7981) 124 15. Dr. Tameejul Hassan 2011110069 Madurai, Tamil Nadu (7962) 140 16. Dr. Sarohini Govintharjan 2011102951 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 123 17. Dr. Periannan 2011103386 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 149 9. The above Tabular column shows that the petitioners were not able to secure 150 marks (50%) and as a result of the same, they became ineligible to register before the medical council and practice medicine in India. Dr. Sarohini Govintharjan 2011102951 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 123 17. Dr. Periannan 2011103386 Chennai, Tamil Nadu (8050) 149 9. The above Tabular column shows that the petitioners were not able to secure 150 marks (50%) and as a result of the same, they became ineligible to register before the medical council and practice medicine in India. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed before this Court. 10. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “5. I state that the petitioners herein have not pointed out violation of any statutory rules or regulations in the conduct of the examination. The thrust of the petitioners grievance as seen from the affidavit appears to be that the questions set for the exam were at a difficult level. It is submitted at the outset that the questions were within the prescribed syllabus and at the MBBS level and not post graduate level as alleged by the petitioners. 9. The contents of para-8 of the petitioners affidavit are denied as incorrect. It has been alleged in para-7 of the petition, that the 3rd respondent NBE Neither publishes the question paper nor the “answer key” after the exam and that it only declares the result of qualified candidates on its website. It is pertinent to mention here that, before a candidate enters his/her information in the on-line application form, the candidate is advised to read the information bulletin carefully and go through the instructions provided therein regarding the scheme of the exam. As per clause 5.5 of the information bulletin it clearly stipulates that there shall be no provision for re-totaling evaluation. Clause 5.5 of the FMGE Screening Test information bulletin (June 2020) Session is reproduced hereunder for reference: 5.5. An applicant shall be declared as having passed only if he/she obtains a minimum of 150 marks out of 300 in the examination. Results (Pass/Fail) for eligible candidates will be displayed on NBE website. There is no provision for re-totaling/re-evaluation. Further the candidates are bound by the Non Disclosure Agreement provided in the information Bulletin. Clause 9B of the information bulletin is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “9-B Non Disclosure Agreement 9.7. FMGE is a proprietary examination and is conducted only by National Board of Examinations. There is no provision for re-totaling/re-evaluation. Further the candidates are bound by the Non Disclosure Agreement provided in the information Bulletin. Clause 9B of the information bulletin is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “9-B Non Disclosure Agreement 9.7. FMGE is a proprietary examination and is conducted only by National Board of Examinations. The contents of this exam are confidential, proprietary and are owned by National Board of Examinations. NBE explicitly prohibits the candidate, from reproducing, transmitting or publishing any or some contents of this exam, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means verbal or written, electronic or mechanical for any purpose whatsoever. NBE shall not entertain any request for sharing any content of the examination including answer keys/answer sheets 9.8. No content of this exam must be shared with friends, acquaintances or third parties including sharing through online means or via social media. Social media includes but not limited to SMS, Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter, Hangouts, Blogs etc. using either one’s own account or proxy accounts. 9. By registering for and/or appearing in FMGE the candidate explicitly agrees to the above Non Disclosure Agreement and general terms of use for FMGE as contained in this Information Bulletin, FMGE website. 9.10. Violation of any act or breach of the same shall be liable for penal action and cancellation of the candidature at the bare threshold. 10. The contents of para-8 of the petitioners affidavit are denied as incorrect question paper of FMGE (Screening Test), June 2020 Session was as per syllabus given in the graduate medical Education regulations issued by the medical council of India and blue print of the examination given in the information bulletin. NBE periodically updates the question bank for FMGE by inviting questions at M.B.B.S. (Exit/Final Year) level from various subject matter experts who are faulty members from Recognised Government medical colleges/Institutes involved in M.B.B.S. teaching and training. Each and every subject matter expert engaged by NBE for validation as well as for final review of the questions are conducted specialty-wise and they have certified that the questions in FMGE (Screening Test) are of MBBS level and pertains to MBBS curriculum. The subject experts engaged by NBE for carrying out these activities are faculty members from recognised Government Medical colleges/institutes involved in M.B.B.S. teaching and training. The subject experts engaged by NBE for carrying out these activities are faculty members from recognised Government Medical colleges/institutes involved in M.B.B.S. teaching and training. It is pertinent to mention here that, during the post exam question paper review of FMGE June 2020 session conducted Specialty - wise by NBE for technical correctness of questions and anser keys, no technically incorrect question was found by the subject experts. Moreover, clause 9.1 and 9.2 of the information bulletin mentions that the exam would consist of 300 multiple choice questions. There is no limitation that the questions must be of a single line or cannot run to several lines. 11. The contents of para-9 of Petitioners affidavit were denied as incorrect. It is pertinent to note that the total time alloted for FMGE (Screening Test) is 5 hours for 300 questions whereas total time alloted in NEET PG is 3 hours 30 Min for 300 questions. Further, unlike in NEET-PG, there is no negative marking in FMGE. All the questions in the exam were of MBBS exit level. The questions stipulated in the FMGE did not favour Hindi speaking candidates in particular. The logo shown in the question was a standard logo laid down by the Government of India. The Demo test available at the NBE website was meant for creating awareness and familarizing the candidates with the test delivery system. It clearly states that the contents of the test are for sample only and actual content will be different on the day of examination.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the exams conducted by the 3rd respondent on 31.08.2020 is challenged on the following grounds:- (a) Over 100 questions that were asked during the examination, were at the level of post-graduate entrance examination. To substantiate this ground, some of the sample questions asked during the examination and as recollected by the petitioners, was brought to the notice of this Court. (b) Over 50 questions were very lengthy or verbose and it took a long time to read the entire question and find the answer and therefore, these types of questions does not fall within the scheme and the time limit fixed for the completion of the examination. (b) Over 50 questions were very lengthy or verbose and it took a long time to read the entire question and find the answer and therefore, these types of questions does not fall within the scheme and the time limit fixed for the completion of the examination. (c) Some of the questions were either wrongly framed and the choice of answers given were incorrect and in some other questions, it was only partially correct and (d) The questions asked during the examination also covered certain patterns and logos to be identified and this time they were too remote and in some cases, the logos contained writings in Hindi, which was not understood by non Hindi candidates. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the pass percentage during this year was abnormally low at the rate of 11.6% and out of 17,198 candidates who appeared for the examination, only 1999 candidates passed the examination. The learned counsel summitted that this pass percentage was much lower than the pass percentages of the earlier years. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners was the main reason for such a low pass percentage. 13. The learned counsel submitted that if the respondents are unwilling to circulate the question papers and the key answers on the ground of confidentiality, then the only other option left is to appoint an expert committee to evaluate the question papers and this Court can get a report from the committee and pass appropriate orders in the present Writ Petition. 14. Per contra, Mr. V.P. Raman, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the National Medical Commission and the National Board of Examinations, submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners is totally unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that nearly 20 experts from various specialities were appointed for the post exam question paper review and this expert committee was not able to find a single incorrect question and this committee compared the questions and answer keys to come to this conclusion. The learned counsel submitted that the expert committee does not have any bias against anyone and this is an independent committee which reviewed the entire papers post the examination. 15. The learned counsel submitted that the expert committee does not have any bias against anyone and this is an independent committee which reviewed the entire papers post the examination. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that all the questions that were asked during the examination was at the level of final year M.B.B.S. and it was not at the level of post-graduation as alleged by the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that asking difficult questions or changing the patterns of the questions or low pass percentage secured during examination, are not grounds to interfere with the examination conducted by the respondents. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that where the experts have reviewed and found the entire examination to have been properly conducted, this Court will not interfere in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and substitute its views. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and Others vs. Kushboo Shrivastava and Others, 2014 (14) SCC 523 . The relevant portion that was relied upon, is extracted hereunder:- 11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 , has observed: (SCC pp. 56-57, para-29) “29......As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.” 17. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents do not disclose the question papers since they do not want a question bank to be developed and this practice is followed in many of the professional examinations like IIM entrance examination. 18. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side and the materials available on record. 19. The only issue that requires consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether, this Court should constitute an independent expert committee to evaluate the question papers of the FMG examination conducted on 31.08.2020. 20. In matters which falls within the domain of experts/expert bodies, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the expert bodies in technical and scientific matters in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioners have raised various grounds to justify the appointment of an independent expert committee. To substantiate the same, some sample questions out of the memory of the petitioners have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court has absolutely no clue to understand either the question or the answer. Medicine is a field which is exclusively within the domain of experts. In the present case, after the completion of the examination, a committee consisting of 20 experts from various disciplines were appointed to review the questions and the key answers, post the examination. 21. To understand the level of experts who were engaged to conduct the process of review, it will be necessary to extract the same hereunder:- S. No. Speciality Name of Expert Designation Institute Date of workshop 1. Orthopedics Dr. Sumit Sural Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 01.09.2020 2. Pediatrics Dr. Piyush Gupta Professor UCMS and GTB Hospital, New Delhi 01.09.2020 3. Anesthesia Dr. Anju R. Bhalotra Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 01.09.2020 4. Bio chemistry Dr. Ekta Debnath Professor Lady Harding Medical College 02.09.2020 5. Community Medicine Dr. Suneela Garg Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 02.09.2020 6. Physiology Dr. Sumit Sural Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 01.09.2020 2. Pediatrics Dr. Piyush Gupta Professor UCMS and GTB Hospital, New Delhi 01.09.2020 3. Anesthesia Dr. Anju R. Bhalotra Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 01.09.2020 4. Bio chemistry Dr. Ekta Debnath Professor Lady Harding Medical College 02.09.2020 5. Community Medicine Dr. Suneela Garg Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 02.09.2020 6. Physiology Dr. Nalin Mehta Professor AIIMS, Delhi 02.09.2020 7. DVD Dr. Poonam Puri Professor VM Medical College and Safdajung Hospital 03.09.2020 8. Pharmacology Dr. Vandana Roy Director Professor MAMC, New Delhi 03.09.2020 9. OBGY Brig. (Dr.) Devendra Arora Professor and HOD Army Hospital (R&R) New Delhi 03.09.2020 10. Radiodiagnosis Dr. M.K. Mittal Professor Safdajung Hospital, Delhi 03.09.2020 11. ENT Dr. Sunil Kumar Director Professor Lady Harding Medical College 03.09.2020 12. General surgery Dr. Deborshi Sharma Professor Lady Harding Medical College 03.09.2020 13. Forensic Medicine Dr. Yashoda Rani Director Professor Lady Harding Medical College 03.09.2020 14. Microbiology Lt. Col Ashish Behl Classified Specialist Army Hospital (R&R) New Delhi 03.09.2020 15. Opthalmology Dr. Ritu Arora Director MAMC, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi 04.09.2020 16. Anatomy Dr. Rima Dada Professor AIIMS, Delhi 04.09.2020 17. Medicine Col. (Dr.) Jayaraman Muthukrishnan Professor Base Hospital, New Delhi 04.09.2020 18. Radiotherapy Lt. Col Rekha Vasisth Specialist Army Hospital (R&R) New Delhi 04.09.2020 19. Pathology Dr. Nita Khurana Professor MAMC, New Delhi 04.09.2020 20. Psychiatry Dr. R.P. Beniwal Associate Professor RML Hospital, New Delhi 04.09.2020 23. After such review, this expert committee was not able to find out technically incorrect questions or wrong key answers for the questions that were asked during the examination. The technical committee also did not find the questions asked during the examination to be beyond the level of M.B.B.S. course. 24. The petitioners are not alleging any mala-fides against the review committee and it is seen that nearly 1999 candidates had cleared the examination. The respondents are intentionally keeping the standard of examination at a very high level to ensure that only meritorious candidates who have completed medicine in a Foreign university, practice medicine in India. The respondents do not have any method of assessing the standard of medical colleges in which these candidates undergo the course. Therefore, the only way to determine the standard is to make these candidates undergo screening test and it is intentionally made tough. The respondents do not have any method of assessing the standard of medical colleges in which these candidates undergo the course. Therefore, the only way to determine the standard is to make these candidates undergo screening test and it is intentionally made tough. The low pass percentage secured for the present academic year 2020-21 does not in any way create a ground for interfering with the selection process. 25. Once a 20 member expert committee has reviewed the question paper and given its finding, this Court cannot appoint one more committee based on the grounds raised by the petitioners. If in case the committee appointed by this Court gives a different report, this Court is not competent enough to give a finding as to which expert committee is right in its finding. Therefore, this Court cannot appoint one more committee to review the question paper and such an exercise will be beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioners will have to prepare themselves well and make their best efforts in the next examination. Beyond this, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners and this Court cannot grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. 26. For the reasons stated supra, this Court does not find any merits in these Writ petitions and accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.