05.11.2014 MADRAS HIGH COURT ... A power of exemption can be exercised by an Authority only with reference to the prescriptions made by the very same Authority. If a prescription is by another Authority, the power of exemption cannot be exercised by one Authority.

Madras High Court

Selvi Nivetha.B vs The Vice Chancellor on 5 November, 2014

 


 
 
 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated : 05.11.2014

Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Writ Petition No.18623 of 2014 and MP.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014


Selvi Nivetha.B.       ...Petitioner
Vs

1.The Vice Chancellor, Tamilnadu Dr.
   MGR Medical University, No.69,
   Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.

2.The Governing Council, Tamilnadu
   Dr.MGR Medical University, No.69,
   Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.

3.The Chairman, Standing Academic 
   Board, Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical 
   University, No.69, Anna Salai, 
   Guindy, Chennai-32.

4.The Dean, Government Thoothukudi
   Medical College, Thoothukudi.     ...Respondents

 PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant exemption to the attendance prescribed by regulation for academic year 2013-2014 to the writ petitioner to write 1st year MBBS University academic examinations to be held in August 2014 along with other students  at the 4th respondent college invoking the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, 1987.
  For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Kathirravan
  For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy
  For Respondent-4 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP


ORDER

This is a very unfortunate case of a girl student admitted to the first year of the MBBS course in the Government Tuticorin Medical College, by virtue of the orders of this Court, after five months of the commencement of the curriculum.

2. The petitioner applied for admission to the MBBS course for the academic year 2013-14. Since she did not come within the cut off mark, she was not selected. Claiming that she was entitled to be considered under the quota reserved for special category of persons such as sports persons, the petitioner came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.16866 of 2013. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on 9.7.2013 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the quota reserved for eminent sports persons, on the basis of the certificate issued by the Throw Ball Federation of India in the year 2010.

3. Finding that the said certificate will not be of any help to her, the petitioner, despite partly succeeding in the writ petition, filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1775 of 2013. The writ appeal was allowed by a judgment dated 19.11.2013 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the certificate issued later. Though the judgment of the Division Bench was made on 19.11.2013, much after the cut off date prescribed by the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India [2013 (14) SCC 805], the Division Bench itself observed that the cut off date may not apply to the case of the petitioner.

4. Consequently, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner under the quota for sports persons and admitted her to the Tuticorin Medical College. The petitioner actually got admitted on 6.3.2014. By that time, a full period of about 5 months and more had expired from the date of commencement of the classes. Therefore, apprehending that she will not be allowed to take the examinations, the petitioner made a representation and thereafter came up with the above writ petition.

5. After ordering notice on 15.7.2014, this Court passed an interim order on 25.7.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014, permitting the petitioner to take the examinations. The said order dated 25.7.2014 reads as follows :

"This Court, taking into consideration of the judgment dated 19.11.2013 made in W.A.No.1775 of 2013 and that the petitioner got admission in M.B.B.S. only after moving the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.595/2014 and further that in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit, she has averred that she had attended the model examination conducted by the department and also fully prepared for the 1st year M.B.B.S. to be conducted by the first respondent University during August 2014 and that the examination fees have also been collected from her, is of the view that the interim direction sought for by the petitioner is to be granted.

2. Accordingly, this petition is ordered as prayed for. However, the result of the examination shall not be declared until further orders from this Court."

6. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner took the examination. But, the results have not been declared and the next examination is scheduled to commence now. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with two more miscellaneous petitions, one in MP.No.2 of 2014 and another in M.P.No. 3 of 2014. By the first miscellaneous petition, the petitioner seeks interim direction to the respondents to declare the results of the first year examination. By the second miscellaneous petition, the petitioner seeks permission to pay the examination fees for the supplementary examination tp be held from 6.11.2014.

7. However, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. Therefore, despite the fact that the fourth respondent has not filed a counter affidavit, I have taken up the writ petition itself.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner falls short of the requisite attendance for the first year. According to the petitioner, she was not responsible for the delay in her admission. The petitioner had to file a writ petition and thereafter a writ appeal and also a contempt petition to gain admission. Therefore, the petitioner contends that she cannot be penalized for the continuous mistakes committed by the respondents in first refusing to consider her under the sports quota and thereafter failing to implement the order of this Court for a long time till a contempt petition is filed.

9. I agree that the petitioner is not at fault. I also agree that the respondents are at fault. But, two faults cannot lead to another fault. The last date for admission of a student to the MBBS course is 30th September. The classes are supposed to begin in October. She admittedly joined the course only on 6.3.2014. As per the Medical Council of India Regulations, a person has to attend fixed number of hours for each subject. This is indicated in paragraph 4 of the counter filed by the University. Paragraph 4 of the counter reads as follows :

"I state that the petitioner has joined I MBBS degree course in the fourth respondent institution only on 6.3.2014 based on the allotment order of Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai dated 3.3.2014. As per M.C.I. Regulations, the I MBBS degree course includes two semesters consist of 120 teaching days of 8 hours each college working time and that every I MBBS student shall undergo 240 teaching days in I MBBS degree course from the date of commencement of his study to the date of completion of examination. Further, as per M.C.I. Regulations, the minimum teaching hours is prescribed for the subjects namely Anatomy - 650 hours, Physiology - 480 hours, Bio-Chemistry - 240 hours and Community Medicine - 60 hours. Admittedly, since the petitioner has joined I MBBS degree course only on 6.3.2014, she has not even undergone the above requisite hours of study and that she is not eligible to appear for the I MBBS degree course University examination held from 1.8.2014 onwards. Attending of special classes to cover 240 days by the students who joined after the cut off date is not specified and permitted by the Medical Council of India."

10. By allowing a person to complete the course despite lack of attendance, solely on the ground that the University was at fault, this Court will only be allowing a half baked person to come out of a medicine course. The Supreme Court has actually condemned such a practice. Therefore, I cannot direct the respondents to relax the requirement of the prescribed number of hours of study.

11. Relying upon Section 36(2) of the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Governing Council is entitled to grant exemption, on the recommendation of the Standing Academic Board.

12. But, apart from the fact that a Court cannot direct the respondents to grant exemption, I doubt whether the University is empowered to grant exemption from the requirement of the prescription contained the Medical Council of India Regulations. A power of exemption can be exercised by an Authority only with reference to the prescriptions made by the very same Authority. If a prescription is by another Authority, the power of exemption cannot be exercised by one Authority.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had attended special classes and that she had compensated.

14. But, I do not know how it is possible especially in a Government college. Therefore, the only manner in which the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed is to direct the respondents to allow her to complete the required number of classes and thereafter take the examination. At the most, the University can be penalized for their mistake and some compensation can be awarded to the petitioner. But, the petitioner cannot get relaxation from the requirement of a prescribed attendance.

15. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.

05.11.2014 Internet : Yes To

1.The Vice Chancellor, Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.

2.The Governing Council, Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.

3.The Chairman, Standing Academic Board, Tamilnadu Dr.MGR Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.

4.The Dean, Government Thoothukudi Medical College, Thoothukudi.

RS V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J RS WP.No.18623 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 05.11.2014