MCI Regulations provide only bottom line, Varsities free to set strict exam regime: DB
By Daily Excelsior
- 11/08/2012
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Aug 10: In a judgement of far reaching consequences on the functioning of Universities all over the country, the Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi has stated that Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations only provide the bottom line and leave it entirely to the Universities to prescribe more strict examination regime to promote efficiency at the level of Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Education.
The Division Bench delivered this significant judgement while dismissing the appeal filed by two students challenging the verdict given by the Single Judge.
Senior Advocate D C Raina along with Advocate Anil Verma appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants—Gafoor Ahmad and Sukhbir Singh were undergoing MBBS course at Government Medical College, Jammu and they failed to pass Clinical Examination on Obstetrics and Gynecology as they secured 24 marks as against the requirement of 25 marks out of 50 marks necessary for clearing the examination.
“Had the respondent University given them one grace mark the appellants would have sailed through but their request in this regard was rejected by the Jammu University on the ground that in terms of Statute 6.2 of the University Statutes introduced vide University Council Resolutions dated February 25, 2008 though up to five grace marks could be awarded in theory component of a subject yet no grace mark was permissible in Clinical (Practical) Examination”, they further submitted.
Aggrieved over the decision of the University, the students knocked the doors of the High Court on the ground that Statute 6.2 was in conflict with Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations and this was liable to be set-aside. Moreover, the Statute 6.2 was introduced in the University Statutes after their admission in the MBBS Course in the year 2001 as such the same was not applicable to the appellants’ case.
Another reason behind their appeal before the Single Judge was that the University granted benefit of grave marks in Clinical Examination notwithstanding Statute 6.2 to Sourabh Katoch and Kewal Krishan, who appeared in MBBS Final Professional Part-II Examination in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
However, the Writ Court didn’t find any merit in the grounds and accordingly dismissed the petition on May 7, 2012. Aggrieved over the Single Judge verdict, the students challenged the order in the Division Bench of the State High Court with the submissions that Writ Court had not appreciated the case in right prospective.
“While appellants projected their case inter-alia on the ground of legitimate expectation, the Writ Court treated it as one of retrospectivity and proceeded to reject their case”, the counsels appearing for the appellants submitted before the Division Bench, adding “the benefit of grave marks in Clinical Examination was extended to some of the MBBS final students but it was arbitrarily denied to the appellants”.
While countering the arguments of counsels for the appellants, Advocate W S Nargal appearing for the Jammu University said, “the object of Regulations made by the Medical Council of India to regulate Graduate and Post Graduate Education in the country is to maintain highest standards in Medical Education so that the knowledge and efficiency of medical graduates and post-graduates, who pass out from Medical Colleges/ Universities is up to the mark and comparable with medical graduates from top most Universities of the world”.
He also read the Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations, which states “the grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student, who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects”.
He further submitted, “the University has acted well within its powers to restrict the grave mark to the theory component of a subject without leaving any scope of grace marks in the clinical or practical examination. Therefore, Statute 6.2 cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of MCI Regulations”.
After going through the appeal as also the Writ Court record and hearing the counsel for both the parties, the DB observed, “the Medical Council of India Regulation forms baseline and it doesn’t restrict the University from prescribing grace marks less than prescribed under Regulation/ Clause 35 or restrict it to either of the components (theory and practical) of a subject”, adding “the University is competent to decide that while it would ignore a candidate’s failure in the theory component of a subject by less than five marks, but would not accept a medical candidate, expected to have good clinical sense, to fail in clinical or practical examination”.
“Statute 6.2 of University Statutes therefore cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations. Had the University of Jammu made room for award of more than five marks, the Statute would have been in conflict with Regulation/ Clause 35 of the MCI Regulations because the MCI Regulations provide the bottom line and leave it to the University to prescribe more strict examination regime to promote efficiency at the level of Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in Medical Education”, the DB said.
In the order, the DB further said, “the University Statute undergo changes from time to time depending upon new developments in the field of academic, science and technology and to respond to the new challenges”, adding “a student enrolled in Graduate or Post Graduate programme striking over a period of three to five years cannot insist that the changes made in the University Statute should not be made applicable to him. An agreement with such a proposition would make exercise of making University Statute responsive to the challenges around meaningless”.
“The appellants cannot seek the benefit that is not permissible under the University Statute only because of such benefit has been extended in isolated cases, either due to clerical error or any inadvertence on part of the officials of University at lowest rung of the administrative machinery”, the DB further said.
With these observations, the DB dismissed Letters Patent Appeal as merit-less.
By Daily Excelsior
- 11/08/2012
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Aug 10: In a judgement of far reaching consequences on the functioning of Universities all over the country, the Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi has stated that Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations only provide the bottom line and leave it entirely to the Universities to prescribe more strict examination regime to promote efficiency at the level of Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Education.
The Division Bench delivered this significant judgement while dismissing the appeal filed by two students challenging the verdict given by the Single Judge.
Senior Advocate D C Raina along with Advocate Anil Verma appearing for the appellants submitted that appellants—Gafoor Ahmad and Sukhbir Singh were undergoing MBBS course at Government Medical College, Jammu and they failed to pass Clinical Examination on Obstetrics and Gynecology as they secured 24 marks as against the requirement of 25 marks out of 50 marks necessary for clearing the examination.
“Had the respondent University given them one grace mark the appellants would have sailed through but their request in this regard was rejected by the Jammu University on the ground that in terms of Statute 6.2 of the University Statutes introduced vide University Council Resolutions dated February 25, 2008 though up to five grace marks could be awarded in theory component of a subject yet no grace mark was permissible in Clinical (Practical) Examination”, they further submitted.
Aggrieved over the decision of the University, the students knocked the doors of the High Court on the ground that Statute 6.2 was in conflict with Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations and this was liable to be set-aside. Moreover, the Statute 6.2 was introduced in the University Statutes after their admission in the MBBS Course in the year 2001 as such the same was not applicable to the appellants’ case.
Another reason behind their appeal before the Single Judge was that the University granted benefit of grave marks in Clinical Examination notwithstanding Statute 6.2 to Sourabh Katoch and Kewal Krishan, who appeared in MBBS Final Professional Part-II Examination in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
However, the Writ Court didn’t find any merit in the grounds and accordingly dismissed the petition on May 7, 2012. Aggrieved over the Single Judge verdict, the students challenged the order in the Division Bench of the State High Court with the submissions that Writ Court had not appreciated the case in right prospective.
“While appellants projected their case inter-alia on the ground of legitimate expectation, the Writ Court treated it as one of retrospectivity and proceeded to reject their case”, the counsels appearing for the appellants submitted before the Division Bench, adding “the benefit of grave marks in Clinical Examination was extended to some of the MBBS final students but it was arbitrarily denied to the appellants”.
While countering the arguments of counsels for the appellants, Advocate W S Nargal appearing for the Jammu University said, “the object of Regulations made by the Medical Council of India to regulate Graduate and Post Graduate Education in the country is to maintain highest standards in Medical Education so that the knowledge and efficiency of medical graduates and post-graduates, who pass out from Medical Colleges/ Universities is up to the mark and comparable with medical graduates from top most Universities of the world”.
He also read the Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations, which states “the grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student, who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects”.
He further submitted, “the University has acted well within its powers to restrict the grave mark to the theory component of a subject without leaving any scope of grace marks in the clinical or practical examination. Therefore, Statute 6.2 cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of MCI Regulations”.
After going through the appeal as also the Writ Court record and hearing the counsel for both the parties, the DB observed, “the Medical Council of India Regulation forms baseline and it doesn’t restrict the University from prescribing grace marks less than prescribed under Regulation/ Clause 35 or restrict it to either of the components (theory and practical) of a subject”, adding “the University is competent to decide that while it would ignore a candidate’s failure in the theory component of a subject by less than five marks, but would not accept a medical candidate, expected to have good clinical sense, to fail in clinical or practical examination”.
“Statute 6.2 of University Statutes therefore cannot be held to be in conflict with Clause 35 of the Medical Council of India Regulations. Had the University of Jammu made room for award of more than five marks, the Statute would have been in conflict with Regulation/ Clause 35 of the MCI Regulations because the MCI Regulations provide the bottom line and leave it to the University to prescribe more strict examination regime to promote efficiency at the level of Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in Medical Education”, the DB said.
In the order, the DB further said, “the University Statute undergo changes from time to time depending upon new developments in the field of academic, science and technology and to respond to the new challenges”, adding “a student enrolled in Graduate or Post Graduate programme striking over a period of three to five years cannot insist that the changes made in the University Statute should not be made applicable to him. An agreement with such a proposition would make exercise of making University Statute responsive to the challenges around meaningless”.
“The appellants cannot seek the benefit that is not permissible under the University Statute only because of such benefit has been extended in isolated cases, either due to clerical error or any inadvertence on part of the officials of University at lowest rung of the administrative machinery”, the DB further said.
With these observations, the DB dismissed Letters Patent Appeal as merit-less.
No comments:
Post a Comment