AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sangeet Lodha, J.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to allow them to fill up the examination form and further to appear in the Examination of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) Part III, scheduled to be conducted in the month of May, 2015.
The relevant facts are that the petitioners are pursuing the BAMS course at Madan Mohan Malviya Government Ayurvedic College, Udaipur. The petitioners were admitted to the course of 4 1/2 years duration. The Examination of BAMS Part I was conducted in the month of April, 2012, however, the petitioners did not appear in the examination and therefore, they were allowed to appear in attempt Examination of BAMS Part I in the month of November-December, 2012. After passing the BAMS Part I examination, the petitioners appeared in the BAMS Part II Examination in the month of April-May, 2014. The petitioners were admitted to BAMS Part III in the month of July, 2014 and they have pursued the studies, however, they are not being permitted to appear in BAMS Part III Examination scheduled to be conducted in the month of May, 2015. Hence, this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to appear in BAMS Part III Examination is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No. 3 was enrolled in the month of October, 2010 and cleared her BAMS Part I Examination in the month of November-December, 2013 yet immediately after six months, she was allowed to appear in BAMS Part II year Examination and therefore, there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners should not be permitted to appear in BAMS Part III Examination. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioners are not permitted to appear in the examination, they will suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as, their completion of the course shall stand delayed by six months. Learned counsel submitted that many others have been permitted to appear in the examination without undergoing regular course of studies for a period of 1 1/2 years and therefore, the treatment meted out by the respondents to the petitioners is discriminatory.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per Ordinance 27D, only a candidate who after passing the First Ayurvedacharya Examination of the University has attended a regular course of study for three academic years prescribed for Final Ayurvedacharya Examination and has passed the Second Ayurvedacharya Examination of the University earlier, shall be eligible for admission to Final Ayurvedacharya Examination and therefore, the petitioners who have admittedly not completed study for 3 academic years, after passing the BAMS Part II Examination, are not eligible to appear in BAMS Part III Examination scheduled to be held in the month of May, 2015. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the present writ petition, stands covered by a decision rendered by Jaipur Bench of this court dated 27.3.14 in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 19856/13: Amit Kumar and Ors. vs. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurvedic University and Anr.
Replying the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Amit Kumar''s case (supra) stands set aside by a Bench of this court at Jaipur vide order dated 21.4.14 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 716/14.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Indisputably, BAMS course consisting of three parts is a professional course of study for the duration of 4 1/2 years. The Examinations of BAMS Part I, II and III are governed by the Ordinance 27B, 27C and 27D of the University, respectively.
As per Ordinance 27B, a candidate who after having admitted to the First Ayurvedacharya class as per the rules has attended a regular course of studies in an affiliated Ayurvedic College for 1 1/2 years shall be eligible for admission to First Ayurvedacharya Examination. Similarly, as per Ordinance 27C, a candidate who after passing the First Ayurvedacharya Examination of the University has attended a regular course of studies for at least 1 1/2 academic years shall be eligible for admission to Second Ayurvedacharya Examination. Likewise, a candidate who after passing the First Ayurvedacharya has attended a regular course of studies for 3 academic years prescribed for Final Ayurvedacharya Examination and has passed the Second Ayurvedacharya Examination of the University earlier, shall be eligible for admission to Final Ayurvedacharya Examination.
It is not disputed before this court that after passing BAMS Part I Examination, the petitioners have not attended regular course of studies for 3 academic years and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that they have passed the BAMS Part II Examination, they are not eligible to appear in BAMS Part III Examination to be conducted in the month of May, 2015.
In the considered opinion of this court, the BAMS is a professional regular course of studies and therefore, it is absolutely necessary that before the candidates are permitted to appear in the examination, they must undergo the regular course of studies for the duration of the course as prescribed. The Ordinance providing for completion of the regular course of studies during the academic years as prescribed before permitting the candidates to appear in the examination, has to be adhered to strictly and the question of this court relaxing the requirement provided as aforesaid, does not arise.
It is pertinent to note that in the matter of Amit Kumar''s case (supra), the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners therein were permitted to appear in the Examination of BAMS Part II before completion of 1 1/2 years of studies pursuant to interim order passed by the court, held that the interim order passed does not create any right and accordingly, dismissed the petition while directing the University to allow the petitioners therein to appear in the next examination. However, the Division Bench of this court set aside the order dated 27.3.14 passed by the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners therein had appeared in the examination pursuant to the interim order passed by the court and by the time, the Special Appeal was taken up for consideration, the candidates had already completed 1 1/2 years of studies from their admission since January, 2013. It is pertinent to note that while setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench has made it clear that the order passed in peculiar facts of the case, which are brought to the notice of the court may not be cited as precedent and thus, the order passed by the Division Bench as aforesaid, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Amit Kumar''s case (supra) taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not help the petitioners in any manner.
Keeping in view the provisions of Ordinance 27D, this court is firmly of the opinion that the petitioners who have not completed studies of three academic years, after passing of the BAMS Part I Examination, are not eligible to appear in BAMS Part III Examination, scheduled to be held in the month of May, 2015. Merely because, the petitioner No. 3 was permitted to appear in BAMS Part II Examination in violation of Ordinance 27C of the University, the petitioners cannot claim any right to appear in BAMS Part III Examination without completion of the course of studies for the prescribed duration. This court is not inclined to pass any order relaxing the requirement of the course of studies as prescribed and permit the petitioners to appear in BAMS Part III Examination inasmuch as, it will amount to perpetuating an illegality.
In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.