Sarbjit Singh vs State of Haryana and others

The petitioner, who was admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course at the Government Medical College, Patiala on Novembef 16, 1989, filed this petition with a prayer that he be permitted to appear in the M.B.B.S. Final Professional Examination commencing on December 9, 1993. The Motion Bench vide its order dated December 3, 1993, permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination "at his own risk and responsibility subject to further orders which may be passed in this writ petition." Consequently, the petitioner took the examination. He now prays for the issue of a direction to the Punjabi University, Patiala to declare his result. The respondents claim that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examination. A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioner belongs to the category of Backward Classes. After qualifying the 10 + 2 examination, the petitioner appeared in the Pre-Medical Test held in June, 1989. He was selected for admission against one of the seats reserved for the candidates belonging to the backward classes. Vide letter dated August 14, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 2 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that he had been provisionally selected for admission to the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical College, Patiala against one of the seats reserved for backward classes and that this was subject to "medical fitness and verification of all original certificates." In pursuance to this letter, the petitioner reported to the Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala on August 18, 1989. The petitioner avers that the Principal desired that the "Backward Class Certificate is to be reverified by the competent authority....." The verification was done. Vide letter dated November 9, 1989, the petitioner was asked to join the course and to deposit the fee by November 16, 1989. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee. He passed his First Professional Examination held on June, 1991 and the 2nd Professional Examination held in December, 1992. His candidature for admission to the 3rd Professional Examination commencing on December 9, 1993, having not been accepted by the University, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner avers that he had completed the curriculum and course of study and was eligible to appear in the examination. He further avers that a number of students, who were similarly situated, were permitted to take the examination by the University. Reference in this behalf has been made to an order dated November 8, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 7 with the writ petition, passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University by which five students, who had not completed the prescribed period of studies, were permitted to appear in the examination. Various other instances have also been quoted. The petitioner maintains that he was eligible to take the examination under the Regulations and that the action of the respondents in considering him as ineligible to take the final Professional Examination held in December, 1993 is discriminatory and violative of the provisions relating to the examination.

The petitioner has not only impleaded the University as a respondent, but also the State of Punjab, the Director Research and Medical Education, the Principal of the College and Ms. Sajila Sultana, a student, who, according to him, was similarly situated, but was permitted to appear in the examination held in December, 1993.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the University, viz. Respondent No. 3. The other respondents have not controverted the facts as alleged by the petitioner.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the University, it has been, inter alia, averred that the petitioner has not "undergone a period of certified study extending over not less than 4 1/2 academic years as required under Ordinance 20....." As such, he is not eligible to appear in the Examination. With regard to the case of Ms. Sajila Sultana, it has been pointed out that she was permitted to take the examination in pursuance to the directions in C.W.P. No. 2290/91, which had been filed by her. It is further averred that the relaxation granted earlier and particularly that in the year 1987 is of no consequence. Provisions of Ordinance 20 being mandatory, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

This petition initially came up for hearing on May 10, 1994. It was adjourned to May 12 to enable the learned counsel for the respondent-University to produce the record. Oh May 12, 1994, learned counsel for the petitioner, had pointed out that two persons, viz. Mr. Navdeep Walia and Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, who had joined the Medical College in November, 1989, were allowed to appear in the final Professional Examination held in December, 1993 and that their results have been declared by the University. In order to enable the learned counsel for the respondent-University to check up the factual position, the case was adjourned for a day. It has consequently come up for hearing today.

Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Chatrath, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the action of the University is violative of Ordinance 20 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr. Sethi, appearing for the respondent-University, has submitted that the petitioner does not fulfil the requirements laid down under Ordinance 20. According to the learned counsel, this provision is mandatory and a student who does not fulfil the conditions prescribed therein is not eligible to appear in the examination.

Secondly, the learned counsel has submitted that even if certain other candidates have been wrongly permitted to take the examination, this Court should not grant any relief to the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Durga Charan Das, and Sachchidananda Tripathy Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Samalpur University and Others, .

The first question that arises for consideration is; Does the petitioner fulfil the requirements of Ordinance 20?

In order to answer this question, it is apt to notice the provision. It reads as under:--

"20. THE FINAL PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION:

The examination shall be held twice a year in the months of January and May at lease 1 1/2 academic years after the completion of the annual Second Professional examination or on such other dates as may be fixed by the Academic Counsel and shall be open to any student who;

(i) has been on the rolls of a medical College admitted to the privileges of this University throughout the year preceding the examination.

(ii) has passed Second Professional examination not less than 12 months previously, provided he has undergone a period of certified study extending over not less than 4 1/2 academic years;

(iii) has his name submitted to the Registrar by the Head of the College in which he is enrolled.

(iv) Produces the following certificates signed by the Head of the college in which he is enrolled.

of good character.

of having attended not less than 75 per cent of the lectures delivered, clinical demonstrations and practicals held separately in each subject in which he is to be. examined, and of having been engaged in Practical work at a recognised Hospital for a period of three years after passing the First Professional M.B.B.S. examination and has done his work to the entire satisfaction of the Head of the college. Provided that deficiency in number of lectures and clinical and practicals may be condoned by the Principal as decided by the Academic Council.

Of having undergone the following courses:

XXX XXX XXX XXX

A persusal of the above provision shows that -

(i) The final professional examination is to be held at least 1 1/2 academic years after the completion of the annual Second Professional examination.

(ii) In order to be eligible the candidate should have been on the rolls of the Medical College throughout the year preceding the examination.

(iii) The candidate should have passed the Second professional Examination not less than 12 months prior to the final Professional Examination.

(iv) The candidate should have undergone a period of certified study extending over not less than 4 1/2 academic years.

(v) He should have attended not less than 75 per cent of the lectures delivered, besides the clinical demonstrations and praclicals,

(vi) Certain certificates, as contemplated under the provision have also to be produced.

According to Mr. Sethi, the petitioner was ineligible to appear in !he examination on account of the fact that he did not fulfil the conditions prescribed in Clause (ii) (supra) i.e. he had not passed the Second Professional Examination 12 months prior to December 1993 and he had not undergone a period of certified studies extending over not less than 4 1/2 academic years. Is it so ?

It is the admitted position that the Entrance Examination for admission to M.B.B.S. Course was held in June, 1989. Vide letter dated August 16, 1989, the petitioner was informed that it had been provisionally decided to admit him. However, later on, delay was caused on account of the reverifica-tion of his certificate. As a result, he was finally admitted on November 16, 1989, It is also the admitted position that all students who had been admitted in August 1989, were considered as eligible for the final professional examination held in December, 1993. It also not disputed that by that time the period of 4 1/2 years had not lapsed. In fact, the period of 4 1/2 years would have been completed on February 18, 1994. It thus appears that the University itself has not insisted on mathematical exactitude and has held the examinations even when a student could not have completed a period of 4 1/2 years of studies. It has also not been disputed that the University has relaxed the requirements of Ordinance 20 in the past. It is apparent from the record that in the year 1987, certain students who had not completed the requisite period of study were permitted to appear in the examination. It is in tbe background of this factual position that the contentions raised by the learned counsel have to be considered.

On a perusal of the provision, it is apparent that it not only lays down a minimum period of study that a student has to undergo, but also prescribes the period that must elapse between the second and the final professional examination. The provision is certainly intented to ensure the maintenance of academic standards which is extremely essential in case of persons who are studying for a Degree in Medicine and Surgery. The provisions are reasonable. They must be strictly enforced. Mr. Sethi appears to be absolutely right in contending that the candidate must fulfil the requirement of Ordinance 20 before he can be permitted to take the examination. However, as the provision itself indicates, neither the months in which the examination is required to be held nor the span of time that must elapse between one and the next examinations have to be mathematically be exact. All that is contemplated is that a student should have attended the college for 4 1/2 academic years and should have passed the Second professional Examination 12 months prior to the Final Professional Examination.

What is the position in the Present case?

The petitioner had admittedly appeared in the Second Professional Examination held in December 1992. According to the provision contained in Clause (ii). there has to be a gap of one year before a candidate can become eligible to appear in the Final Professional Examination. This condition was completely fulfilled as a period of 12 months had elapsed by December, 1993 when the Final Professional Examination was held. Mr. Sethi, however, contends that the result of the examination held in December 1992, was declared in February 1993. He submits that the period of one year has to be counted from the date of the declaration of the result. This does not appear to be correct. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the time taken by the University in declaring the result. Once a student has appeared in an examination and passed it, the declaration of result would relate back to the date of the examination. This is all the more so in view of the fact that after completion of the examination, the candidates are allowed to attend the next higher class. In this situation, it cannot be held that the candidate has to wait for one year after the declaration of the result. Such a course of action can cause extreme hardship and avoidable loss. The plea is. therefore, rejected. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner fulfilled this requirement of Ordinance 20(ii).

12A. As for the second contention that the candidate should have undergone a period of certified studies extending over not less than 4 1/2 academic years, it deserves mention that this provision has to be read along with Clause (2) which requires that the candidate should have attended not less than 75 per cent of the lectures delivered. It has been admitted that the petitioner joined the classes on November 16, 1989. It is also admitted that he has attended 75 per cent lectures delivered. It can also not be disputed that even the candidates who had joined in August 1989 had not completed studies for 414 years in December 1993. At best, they had completed studies for a period of four years and 4 months. As already observed, in the very nature of things, mathematical exactitude cannot be insisted upon. Secondly, if persons, who had joined in August 1989, were considered eligible, the petitioner, who has completed the requisite percentage of lectures in spite of the fact that he was admitted three months later, cannot be held to be ineligible,

Another fact which may be mentioned here is that the categorical stand taken on behalf of the petitioner is that Mr. Navdeep Walia and Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, who had joined the course along with the petitioner in November, 1989, were permitted to take the examination held in December, 1993. Mr. Sethi contends that this submission cannot be allowed to be raised as the petitioner has not made an averment to that effect in the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner should have amended the writ petition suitably so as to enable him to file a proper reply. He further points out that these candidates had approached the Academic Council and it was on the grant of permission by the Council that they were permitted to take the examination. Be that as it may, the fact remains that certain candidates who were admitted along with the petitioner in November, 1989, were permitted to take the examination held in December, 1993. Their results have also been declared. The petitioner is a Member of the Backward classes. Academically, he does not appear to have done badly. In fact, he seems to have passed the first and the second professional examinations with a score of more than 60 per cent. In such a situation, it does not appear to be fair and reasonable to deny him the benefit of the examination already taken by him.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately declare the petitioner''s result for the examination held in December 1993. In case, it is found that the petitioner has failed in one or more paper/s he should be allowed to appear in the examination commencing on May 16, 1994. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.