Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 of Amravati University, which barred students from appearing in more than four consecutive examinations, applied only to examinees, defined as those who had been issued an admission card for an examination. Unforeseen circumstances beyond a student's control, such as detention, could not be construed as a failure to present oneself at an examination.

Headnote:
MEDICAL EDUCATION - ADMISSION TO MBBS COURSE - FOUR CONSECUTIVE ATTEMPTS - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE 16 OF ORDINANCE 55 OF AMRAVATI UNIVERSITY - APPLICABILITY TO EXAMINEES ONLY - UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING APPEARANCE IN EXAMINATION - NOT CONSIDERED AS FAILURE TO PRESENT SELF - PETITIONER NOT EXHAUSTED FOUR ATTEMPTS - ENTITLED TO APPEAR IN EXAMINATION.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a medical student, was detained in his first year of MBBS due to lack of attendance and could not appear for the first MBBS examination in winter 1992. He was allowed to appear in the summer 1993 examination by court order but failed. His admission was regularized in June 1994, and he passed the first MBBS examination in summer 1995 but failed in two subjects. He was not allowed to appear in the winter 1995 examination as his examination form was returned by the university, citing Clause 16 of Ordinance 55, which barred students from appearing in more than four consecutive examinations.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 applied only to examinees, defined as those who had been issued an admission card for an examination. Since the petitioner had not been issued an admission card for the winter 1992 examination due to his detention, he could not be considered an examinee for that examination. Additionally, the court held that unforeseen circumstances beyond a student's control, such as the petitioner's detention, could not be construed as a failure to present oneself at an examination.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had exhausted four consecutive attempts at the first MBBS examination as provided by Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 of Amravati University. 2. Whether unforeseen circumstances preventing a student from appearing for an examination could be considered as a failure to present oneself at the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 to apply only to examinees, defined as those who had been issued an admission card for an examination. Since the petitioner had not been issued an admission card for the winter 1992 examination due to his detention, he could not be considered an examinee for that examination. 2. The court held that unforeseen circumstances beyond a student's control, such as the petitioner's detention, could not be construed as a failure to present oneself at an examination. The court applied the legal maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibillia" (the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly do) to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and declared that the petitioner had not exhausted four attempts as provided by Clause 16 of Ordinance 55. The respondents were directed to accept the petitioner's examination form for the first year MBBS examination commencing from 26th April, 1996.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. B.P. Jaiswal, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 2. By consent, heard finally at this stage.

2. Petitioner Rajkumarsingh, after passing out his XIIth standard examination conducted by the U.P. State Secondary Board in Summer 1991, applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in Dr. Panjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, Amravati (respondent No. 2) in the Academic Session 1991-92. The petitioner was admitted in the respondent No. 2 College. The first M.B.B.S. examination of the petitioner was in due in winter 1992. The petitioner did not complete requisite attendance and he was detained and could not appear in the examinations which were held in winter 1992. For the first year examination in Summer 1993, the petitioner had submitted his examination form, but the respondent No. 2 College communicated to the petitioner that the form has been returned by respondent No. 1 Amravati University with a direction that admission of the petitioner for the M.B.B.S. course should be cancelled. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Court challenging the said communication dated 2-4-1993 in Writ Petition No. 105 of 1993. This Court admitted the said writ petition on 23-4-1993 and granted interim order that during the pendency of writ petition, the effect, operation and execution of the communication dated 2-4-1993 shall stand stayed and the petitioner was allowed to appear in the First Year M.B.B.S. examination. The petitioner did appear in the examination of First M.B.B.S. course held in summer 1993, but the result of the petitioner was not declared in view of the pendency of writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the communication dated 2-4-1993 whereby the admission of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course was ordered to be cancelled. While the writ petition was pending before this Court, the admission of petitioner was regularised by the Government of Maharashtra vide order dated 28-6-1994 and in this view of the matter the petitioner withdrew the writ petition by filing pursis on 11-7-1994. The petitioner's result of the first M.B.B.S. examination which he had taken in summer 1993, was declared on 25-10-1994 and he failed. The winter 1994 examination of first M.B.B.S. commenced on 26-10-1994, but the case of petitioner is that since his result of first M.B.B.S. examination of summer 93 was declared only on 25-10-1994, he could not have submitted examination form for winter 1994 examination and, therefore, he had not at all attempted for winter 1994, examination. The petitioner submitted examination form for the first M.B.B.S. course in summer 1995 and the petitioner passed out in Physiology, but he failed in Biochemistry and Anatomy. Then the petitioner submitted his examination form for the first M.B.B.S. in winter 1995 commencing from 15-12-1995, which was received back by petitioner from respondent No. 2 stating that the examination form of the petitioner for first M.B.B.S. examination was returned by the Amravati University as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Clause 16 of Ordinance No. 55. Petitioner made representation to the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 1 University on 14-12-1995, but could not get any relief. It is further stated by the petitioner in writ petition that the return of examination form by communication dated 13-12-1995 was in contravention of Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 of Amravati University and that the first M.B.B.S. examination in summer 1996 is commencing from 26-4-1996 and the respondent should be directed to accept examination form of the petitioner for the first M.B.B.S. examination of summer 1996 commencing from 26-4-1996. In the background of these facts; the petitioner prays that it be declared that he has not exhausted four consecutive attempts as provided in Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 and that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document