The judgment emphasizes the statutory force of Regulation 7(3) and the need to adhere to statutory rules and regulations, particularly in the context of MBBS Examination attempts.

( 1 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner s first four attempts to clear Phase-I of the MBBS Examination have remained futile. The undisputed case is that he had sought to clear the Phase-I Examination in the fifth opportunity and for this purpose had got the clearance of the University, namely, utkal University, Bhubaneswar. This is evident from the letter dated 04. 01. 2002 authored by the Controller of Examination of that University. This attempt has proved to be somewhat favourable. Although he succeeded in passing the examination, the declared result has been recalled by the University, and it is this action that has been assailed in these proceedings.

( 2 ) THE relevant provision is Regulation 7 (3) which stipulates thus

"7 (3) The first2 semesters (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. No student shall be permitted to join the Phase II (para-clinical/clinical) group of subjects until he has passed in all the Phase I (pre-clinical) subjects for which he will be permitted not more than four chances (actual examination), provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrolment. "

( 3 ) IT is no longer res Integra that the Rules and Regulations of the Medical council of India have statutory force. This is obvious from a perusal of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, VI (1998) SLT 140=1998 (6) SCC 131 and in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya pradesh, VII (1999) SLT 534=1999 (7) SCC 120.

( 4 ) BY its letter dated 8th May, 2001 to all the Medical colleges, it had been clarified that only four attempts would be permitted to any student to clear Phase- imbbs. An additional fifth attempt would be permitted provided the University has no objection, the pre-requisite being the obtainment of the clearance of the medical Council of India. The mischief and piquant situation which has occurred is because the Utkal University has allowed the Petitioner to appear in the fifth attempt without obtaining the prior clearance of the Medical Council of India. The somewhat ackward and tragic circumstance has occurred because the petitioner has cleared the Phase-I examination in the fifth attempt.

( 5 ) SIMILAR questions have arisen and have been decided by the High Court of andhra Pradesh and the High Court of Karnataka. It has been observed by both the courts that Regulation 7 (3) has statutory force and should, therefore, be strictly enforced. It cannot be gainsaid that the powers contained under Article 226 ought not to be employed in a manner that would have the result of ignoring statutory rules and Regulations. Reference need not be directed beyond the Apex Courts pronouncements in State of Tamilnadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao, (1992) 4 SCC 435.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner is justified in attempting to draw the distinction between the judgments of the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High courts in pointing out that the petitioners before those Courts had not cleared the phase-I examination, albeit in the fifth attempt, as is the case in the petition before me, The fact remains that a Regulation having statutory force prohibits the fifth attempt without a prior clearance of the Medical Council of India. I also find that there is sufficient merit and substances and a compelling rationale in placing a limit on the number of attempts available to a student to clear the sundry examinations, as also the duration of three years within which this should be achieved. In the present case, even if there is a plausible explanation whereby the period of three years should be extended for a short duration because of a delay in the holding of the examinations, the fact remains that the peti