JUDGMENT

R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.

The common judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 887 of 2006 and connected cases is under challenge in this appeal by special leave. The appeal relate to the interpretation of Regulation 12 (2)& (4) of "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997" framed by Medical Council of India (for short MCI Regulations). The description of appellant is permitted to be corrected by showing the Deputy Registrar as representing the Appellant University, instead of the Deputy Registrar of the Appellant University being shown as the appellant.

2. The appellant-University (referred as the University) was established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The private respondents (students for short) are prosecuting MBBS course in different Medical Colleges affiliated to the University. They appeared for the III MBBS Part II examination conducted by the University in December, 2005. The subjects were General Medicine, General Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Paediatrics. The results were published on 18.2.2006. The students were shown as having failed in one or more subjects and as a consequence, as having failed in the examination. Feeling aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. They contended that the standards or criteria for passing adopted by the University were contrary to the MCI Regulations; that on the marks obtained by them, they ought to have been declared as having passed in the subjects; and that the University had shown them as failed by applying Clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002 which wrongly interpreted clauses (2) and (4) of Regulation 12 of the MCI Regulations. They, therefore, sought a declaration that clauses 56(2) and 57 of the University Ordinance 1 of 2002 and the consequential University Notification No.5 of 2006 dated 20.2.2006 were illegal and ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, that is Regulation 12 of MCI Regulations framed under section 33 of the said Act. They also sought a direction for re-determination of their results in the failed subjects by applying and adopting the procedure prescribed in regulation 12 of MCI Regulations and declare them as having passed in the subject/s and consequently the examination. In the said writ petitions, the University, the Medical Council of India (MCI for short) and the Medical Colleges were impleaded as respondents.

3. The High Court allowed the writ petitions by common judgment dated 23.6.2006. It held that clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1 of 2002 is illegal and void being inconsistent with and violative of MCI Regulation 12. It also held that MCI Regulation No.12(4) will have to be read and understood in the manner clarified by MCI, in its letter dated 17.9.2002. It directed the University to recalculate the marks based on the MCIs clarification of its Regulation 12(4). The said decision is challenge by the University in this appeal.Relevant provisions :

4. In exercise of the powers under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997. Chapter IV of the Regulations relates to examinations. We extract below relevant portions of Regulation 12 dealing with examinations: 12. Examination Regulations. Essentialities for qualifying to appear in professional examinations. The performance in essential components of training are to be assessed, based on: (1)Attendance : 75% of attendance in a subject for appearing in the examination is compulsory inclusive of attendance in non-lecture teaching i.e. seminars, group discussions, tutorials, demonstrations, practicals, Hospital (Tertiary, Secondary, Primary) postings and bed side clinics, etc.(2)Internal Assessment :

(i) it shall be based on day-to-day assessment (see note), evaluation of student assignmen