AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—W.P. No. 13089 of 1994 has been filed by twenty-seven students, who were admitted to the First Year M.B.B.S. in the academic year 1993-94 and were posted to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute. W.P. No. 13739 of 1994 has been filed by twenty students who belong to the same category. W.P. No. 14692 of 1994 has been filed by a student of the First Year M.B.B.S., who was admitted to the Government Kilpauk Medical College in the academic year 1993-94. W.P. No. 14776 of 1994 has been filed by two students of the First Year M.B.B.S., who were admitted to the Government Stanley Medical College in the academic year 1993-94. All of them are aggrieved by a communication from the first Respondent University, which runs as follows:
I am by direction to state that the Standing Academic Board of this University resolved to permit the I M.B.B.S., students, who have joined up to 15th November, 1993 to take up their Part I and Part II examinations together in October, 1994.
The above communication implies that the students, who had joined the First M.B.B.S. after 15-11-1993 cannot take Part II examination in October, 1994. They were, however, permitted to take Part I examination. The date of examination has since been changed from October, 1994 to November, 1994. The contention of the Petitioners is that they were all selected as per the list announced by the Government of Tamilnadu on 8.11.1993. By a publication in the newspaper, dated 24-11-1993, the selected candidates were directed to join the respective Colleges on or before 26-11-1993. It is not necessary to notice the exact date on which each of the Petitioners joined the College. Suffice it to notice that all of them had joined the Course between 15-11-1993 and 30-11-1993 except in the case of one student, by name K. Priya Gomathy, the 13th Petitioner in W.P. No. 13739 of 1994, who had joined the Sri Ramachandra Medical College on 7-1-1994. The question for consideration is whether the Respondents have jurisdiction to impose a cut-off date like 15-11-1993 and permit only those who joined before 15-11-1993 to take both the Parts I and II of the First Year M.B.B.S., examinations and prevent the others from taking Part II examination of the first year M.B.B.S., in November, 1994. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has raised several points on the question whether the Petitioners have had sufficient training, and in support of this contention, he has referred to several certificates from Professors of the college. He also says that special classes were taken to make up for the loss in the late admission of the students. Secondly, it is contended that the students are not responsible for the late admission of the respective students, and therefore they cannot be penalised by preventing them from taking the examination in November, 1994. Thirdly, it is pointed out that at least those students who had joined the course prior to 26-11-1993, which it was the date by which they were asked to report to the College, there should not be any restriction. On the question of attendance, it is stated that the Petitioners have the required attendance or at any rate, the attendance is within the condonable limits.
In answer to the above contentions, two counter-affidavits have been filed in which the Respondents take the stand that the Regulations for the M.B.B.S. Course, as framed by the Standing Academic Board of the University u/s 44 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987, would alone govern the issue. It is then pointed out that about twenty-three candidates from various Medical Colleges, who had joined the M.B.B.S., course after 30-9-1993 had made a representation to the University to permit them to appear for the first year M.B.B.S. Part I examination in April, 1994. Certain others had sought for permission to appear for Parts I and II examinations in October, 1994. These matters were placed before the Standing Academic Board on 28-2-1994. The Board resolved that those candidates who had joined the Course before 31-10-1993 might be permitted to appear for Parts I and II in November, 1994, as a special case. The Governing Council of the University also approved of the said decision on 10-3-1994. However, on 28-3-1994, the Standing Academic Board again met and resolved to extend the date from 31-10-1993 to 15-11-1993. Apparently it is on the basis of this second resolution that the impugned communication was issued. The Respondents urged that there is no provision in the Regulations for permitting students to take Part I and Part II examinations together, but they had conceded this request only taking note of the plight of the students. The Respondents also have given certain statistics, which will give a correct picture of the scene:
It is respectfully submitted that from the statistics, it is seen that about 267 students have joined the course during the period between 1-11-1993 and 30-11-1993 and out of the 267 students, 104 students have joined the course before 15-11-1993 and 163 students have joined the course on or after 16-11-1993. There are about 53 students who have joined the course between 1-12-1993 to 31-3-1994. It is also to be noted that one Priya Gomathi, has joined the course on 7-1-1994, has filed a writ petition, i.e. W.P. No. 13739 of 1994, who could not have attended the minimum number of classes as required by the regulations.
It is then contended that the decision had been taken by the eminent Professors and Experts in the field, and such a decision does not call for any interference.
I will now refer to the Regulations themselves to understand the scope of the respective contentions. The Regulations are called "Regulations for the M.B.B.S., Course of the Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras". The Regulations came into force on 9-11-1992. The Regulations are subject to modification by the Standing Academic Board from time to time. The first M.B.B.S., course comprises of two parts.
Part I subjects are:
Anatomy - 1
Physiology - 1
Biochemistry
Part II comprises of only two subjects:
Anatomy - II
Physiology - II
But we are more concerned with the academic terms for the above course of study. Part I is from the period 1st July of the year to 31st March of the next year. Part II is for the duration of 1st June of the next year to 31st October of the year. The counter-affidavit also points out that totally there must be a period of eighteen months training for a student to complete the Part I and Part II course. The Regulations then prescribe certain cutoff dates for taking up the examination. These cut-off dates are the most important aspect of the case so far as the present writ petitions are concerned. I will therefore extract the said portion of the Regulation:
The candidates admitted from 1st July to 30th September will be registered to take up their first year examination in April of the next year.
The candidates admitted from 1st October to 28th February will be registered to take up'' their 1 Part examination during the October of the next year.
The candidate admitted on or after 1st March will be registered to the academic year concerned but they have to undergo the course and appear for the examination along with the subsequent year batch of students.
The examination dates are given as April, 1st and November, 1st.
There can be no quarrel with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents that the Regulations alone should govern the examination dates. So construed, all the students, who were admitted to the first M.B.B.S. course, 1993-1994 between 1st October and 28th February of next year, are eligible to take Part I examination during October of the next year (subsequently changed to November of the year). There is no difficulty in holding that all the Petitioners concerned in these cases were definitely admitted in the respective colleges between 1st October 1993 and 28th February of 1994, including the said Priya Gomathy, who was admitted on 7-1-1994. Therefore, all of them are entitled to appear for the first part of the first M.B.B.S., in November, 1994 and the Respondents also have no objection to this. But the difficulty arises only in respect of the Part II subjects. I am unable to see any difficulty so far as Part II subjects are concerned because it is not disputed that the course had commenced from 1st June of 1994 and had proceeded upto 31-10-1994. If that is so, I am unable to find any reason as to why some of the students should be prevented from taking the Part II examination in November, 1994 along with the other students, who have been so permitted on the ground that they had been admitted to the course before 15-11-1993. In my opinion, the date 15-11-1993 has absolutely no nexus to the above regulations, especially with particular reference to the Part II subjects. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander also. Between the students who were admitted prior to 15-11-1993 and the students, who were admitted after 15-11-1993, there is absolutely no difference so far as the duration of the course regarding the part II subjects is concerned, viz., from 1st June, 1994 to 31-10-1994. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the fixation of the cut-off date as 15-11-1993 in the impugned Letter is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. It has absolutely no nexus to the Regulations above referred to. It certainly makes an invidious discrimination between the students of the same class, viz., belonging to the first year M.B.B.S., course. The Authorities should remember that the student community is very jealous of their rights, and if a discrimination is made among them in the manner sought to be made under the impugned letter, there is certainly likelihood of considerable discord and disunity among the students. The Authorities should set an example to the students and at this very young age, the Authorities themselves should not sow the seed of discrimination and discord.
It is said "For whatever a man so wet h, that shall he also reap". Therefore let the Authorities set good examples to the student Community.
The only other aspect of the case relates to the question of attendance. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents did not argue on the question of attendance at all and rightly so. This is because no student, who does not have the required attendance can be permitted to take the examination if the attendance is not within the condonable limits. It is up to him to make an application and have the shortage condoned. There can be no direction to give concession in these matters and the students have to earn their attendance.
While granting relief in these cases, I am of the opinion relief should not be denied to those students, who have not approached this Court. Therefore, whatever directions are given in these writ petitions, they shall apply to all the first year M.B.B.S. students of the 1993-1994, academic year.
I may also add that the importance of the Regulations of the University has been stressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., . The following words are apposite:
As a matter of fact, by virtue of the provisions of the U.G.C. Act, noticed hereinabove, no educational institution in this country except a University is entitled to award degrees. It is for this reason that all private educational institutions seek recognition and/or affiliation with a view to enable them to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations conducted by the Government/University. The idea is that if such students pass the said examination, the Government/University will award its degree/diploma/certificate to them. These educational institutions follow the syllabus prescribed by the Government/University, have the same courses of study, follow the same method of teaching and training. They do not award their own degrees/qualifications. They prepare their students for University/Government examinations, request the university/Government to permit them to appear at the examinations conducted by them and to award the appropriate degrees to them....
The Apex Court also made it clear that grant of affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality. In other words, the Regulations framed by the University are supreme and should be fully complied with. No doubt the Standing Academic Board has a power to modify the Regulations from time to time. But this exercise should be undertaken on the basis of a proper study and in a manner, which will not discriminate between one class of students and another class of students.
I, therefore, allow all those four writ petitions and give the following directions:
The Petitioners as well as other students of the first year M.B.B.S., Course 1993-1994 shall be permitted to write both the Parts I and II examinations in November, 1994, provided they had been admitted to the respective colleges between 1st October 1993 and 28-2-1994.
The respective students should satisfy the Authorities that they have the required attendance.
There will be no order as to costs.
If the time for Payment of the fees in respect of Part II examinations of the first year M.B.B.S., is already over, the Respondents are directed to extend the date by ten days from today (13-9-1994) and receive the fees from those who are ready to take the said examinations.