These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as these two writ petitions involve common point of law.

The petitioners are graduates in medicine and students of post graduation who are pursuing the course of MD General Medicine in the third respondent college. The said course is of three years duration. The first respondent University conducted the examination for P.G Degree theory and practical on 21.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 respectively. The results of the examinations were declared on 23.06.2015 and the petitioners were stated to have secured the following marks.     

The required minimum marks for theory examination is 200 whereas for practical examination, it is 150 marks. Since the petitioners secured only 127 marks in the practical examination, they were declared to have been failed. Challenging their result, these two writ petitions were filed.

Though the petitioners raised several issues concerning their academic career extolling their performance and attributing some motives against the college due to the role one of the Petitioners acting as a student leader, we are concerned only with the point regarding the procedure followed in conducting clinical/practical and oral examination held on 13.05.2015 in these two writ petitions. It is the common case of the petitioners that in the practical examination, only three examiners were appointed as against the required four examiners i.e., two internal examiners and two external examiners. Only one external examiner, Dr. Mohan K. Kunti alone was present along with two internal examiners. As per the regulations made by the Medical Council of India (for short, ‘the MCI’) called the “Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000”, which were approved by the Government of India on 22.05.2000 and published in the Official Gazette on 07.10.2000, it is mandatory to have two external examiners. However, in respect of the internal examiners, the examination can be held with only one examiner, but the result in such case shall be published after approval from the MCI. The regulations also prescribe the qualifications for appointment of the external examiners. Even though the two internal examiners included the Head of Department, Dr. K. Satyanarayana Rao, the said Head of Department was not physically present in the entire process of practical examinations as of long case and short cases and orals and only two examiners (one external and one internal) were present. It is also the case of the petitioners that the practical examination for each student was started at 9:30 a.m. (morning session) for long and short cases and discussions by the examiners were started at 11:30 a.m. and ended by 1:30 p.m. for all the students. Fifteen minutes was spent for each candidate to evaluate 200 marks and the said time was hardly sufficient for evaluation of 200 marks. The orals commenced at 2:30 p.m. and was completed by 3:30 p.m. for all the eight students in order to evaluate 100 marks and the said time was also insufficient. In both sessions viz., morning and afternoon, the Head of Department was absent. Thus, the procedure adopted for evaluating 300 marks was not in compliance with the regulations framed by MCI, since there was participation of only one external examiner and one internal examiner. Out of the eight candidates who appeared for the said examination, the petitioners and one Dr. G. Swapna were declared to have been failed in the examination. The said Dr.