Rishiraj Sharma, Achal Sharma and Jitendra Meena vs Raj. University of Health Sciences and Another

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioners (1) Rishiraj Sharma, (2) Achal Sharma & (3) Jitendra Meena, assailing order dt. 03/03/08 (Ann.3) whereby in absence of completing training period of one & half year of II MBBS course, their request to appear in II MBBS examination, was rejected.

Initially three petitioners approached this Court. However, Counsel on instructions submits that petitioner No. 2 (Achal Sharma)has failed and petitioner No. 3 (Jitendra Meena) has filed application to withdraw the petition on his behalf. Thus, Counsel is prosecuting the petition only for petitioner No. 1-Rishiraj. Degree of MBBS (professional) is of four & half years duration under semester system; and to clear semester, two attempts are provided for each semester of MBBS course. Petitioner joined MBBS course (Part-I) in August-2005 and appeared in 1st Year examination held in July, 2006 but could not pass out in 1st attempt; as such took 2nd attempt in January, 2007 but this time also, could not clear papers of I professional MBBS examination.

Sole grievance of petitioner by instant petition is that respondent-University earlier has granted one more (third) chance in the form of re-remand to save year-back; as a Special chance was provided to MBBS Part-II examination held in April, 2006.and at the same time, similarly situated students approached this Court by way of CWP-3087/2007 (Harlal Singh & (21) Ors.) seeking special chance and parity with those students in whose case the authority exercised discretion to save year-back of students, which was granted for appearing in IMBBS examination - July, 2007 vide order dt. 25/06/07 (Ann.2); and on the same analogy, petitioners also approached this Court by way of CWP-405/07 (Achal Sharma and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences) which was decided by this Court vide order dt.17/01/08 directing them to make their representation to the Vice Chancellor who shall consider & decide the same within one month - pursuant to which, petitioners submitted representation but their request was rejected vide order dt.03/03/08 (Ann.3). However, petitioner appeared in I-MBBS examination - July, 2007 and cleared all the paper in Third attempt.

Counsel submits that petitioner may be treated to be a student of Batch, 2005 and may be permitted to appear in II-MBBS (Professional) examination alongwith batch of 2005. However, this Court vide interim order dt.11/06/08 permitted the petitioner to appear in 2nd year MBBS (Prof.) examination and vide order dt. 03/11/08, the result was directed to be produced; and on 20/11/08, result was produced - as per which for petitioner No. 1 (Rishiraj), it was recorded that his case was to be considered on merits.

Counsel for petitioner No. 1 submits that once the University has exercised its powers granting special chance to similarly situated students, as is apparent from order dt.25/06/07 (Ann.2), there is no justification to deny the same benefit to the petitioner being similarly situated students; in such circumstances, action of respondents is certainly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon recent decision of Apex Court in Sahiti and Ors. v. Chancellor Dr NTR University of Health Sciences 2008(13) Scale 464.

Respondent No. 1 in its reply inter-alia averred that this Court directed the University to consider their representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; and under MCI Regulations, 1997, one is eligible to appear in2nd year professional MBBS examination only after completing 3rd, 4th & 5th semester each of six months duration; and as regards petitioner, since he qualified all the papers of MBBS Part-I, only in September, 2007; as such unless he undergoes 3rd, 4th & 5th semester each of six months, cannot be considered as eligible to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof) examination taking note thereof, their representation was rejected. University''s Counsel further submits that only because of interim order of this Court, petitioner was permitted to appear in Part-II MBBS examination held in July, 2008, which although he has qualified, but could not confer any right, because he was not eligible as per MCI Regulations, 1997 to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof) examination in July, 2008. Counsel further submits that there is no provision of any special chance under the University''s Ordinance or under MCI Regulations, 1997 and only at one time in peculiar situation, it was considered by Vice Chancellor but it cannot be claimed by petitioner as a matter of right; and will also not construe as precedent for all times to come.

I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Petitioner finally qualified all the papers of 1st year MBBS examination in Third attempt held in July, 2007 as is evident from mark-sheet dt. 26/09/07 (Ann.4) and certainly as per Scheme of MCI Regulations, 1997 one can be permitted to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof.) examination only after one completes 3rd, 4th & 5th semester each of six months duration, which the petitioner admittedly failed to qualify and to become eligible to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof.) examination held in June, 2008.

Suffice it to say that Ord.272 does not give absolute power to the Vice Chancellor to act in contravention of MCI Regulations, 1997, according to which, the term of MBBS course is being regulated; and even if at one point of time, Vice Chancellor considered to grant students of Part-I MBBS course in July, 2007 as a special chance which in no manner can be considered as a precedent being cited for all times to come. It is always expected from the authority to exercise its discretion judiciously and within parameter of law. If one is not permitted to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof.) examination unless he completes 3rd, 4th & 5th semester each of six months duration in terms of MCI Regulations, 1997 - period prescribed under which could not have been relaxed by the authority even in exercise of powers under Ord. 272 of the University. Granting special chance in the opinion of this Court will be in contravention of MCI regulations, 1997, which certainly cannot be permitted under law. This Court does not find any error committed while rejecting request of petitioner for grant of special chance vide order impugned. Judgment on which Counsel has placed reliance will be of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.