IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Priyanka Bedi - Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi - Respondent
LPA 124 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim relief sought from single judge. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. timeline of appellant's mbbs examinations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. regulation on maximum time limit for mbbs course. (Para 6) |
| 4. no prima facie case for interim order. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. no stay due to pendency of writ petition. (Para 9) |
| 6. dismissal of letters patent appeal. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
D.N.Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)
CM APPL. 11640/2021 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
LPA 124/2021, CM APPL. 11638/2021 (stay) & CM APPL. 11639/2021 (addl. doc.)
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3586/2021 dated 18th March, 2021 (Annex. A-1 to memo of this appeal) the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been preferred by the original petitioner.
3. Having heard the learned counsels from both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) sought an interim relief before learned Single Judge in writ petition praying for the permission to allow appellant (original petitioner) to appear in 3rd year professional MBBS examination and supplementary examination to be conducted by the Respondent No.4 (National Medical Commission). This interim relief was not granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th March, 2021 and hence the present (LPA) has been preferred by the original petitioner.
4. On perusal of the facts presented before us, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) who joined the MBBS professional course in the year 2011 and subsequently she was unable to clear first year's MBBS examination which was due in the year 2012. Several attempts were made by this appellant (original petitioner) to clear first year of MBBS during 2012 to 2016 and ultimately in the month of September, 2016, she managed to clear 1st year of MBBS examination.
5. Similar is the position for second year's MBBS examination. This original petitioner could not clear examination of 2nd year of MBBS which was due in the year 2017. Several attempts were made by this appellant between 2017 and 2020 and ultimately in the month of September, 2020, this appellant managed to clear 2nd year of MBBS examination.
6. Now, this appellant wants to appear in the 3rd year's examination of MBBS. It appears that as per the prevailing rules & regulation especially resolution number 150 dated 9th July 2011 of Academic Council of the University of Delhi, which is annexed (at annexure A/3 of the memo of this appeal), the Clause 4 (b) of the said regulation prescribes maximum time limit of 8 years for completion of the MBBS course. For the ready reference, Resolution No. 150 dated 09.07.2011 of the Academic Council of University of Delhi when the Clause 4(b) reads as under: -
"Training period and time distribution:
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) Span Period: Maximum of 08 (eight) years from the date of admission in the1st Professional MBBS Course (excluding internship training period)."
7. In view of the aforesaid position of the facts and also keeping in mind, the Resolution passed by the Academic Council of the University of Delhi, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion that an interim relief sought by this appellant (original petitioner) in form of allowing the appellant to appear in 3rd year professional MBBS Examination cannot be granted at this stage.
8. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge are in paragraph 7 of the impugned order for the ready reference, Para 6 & 7 of the impugned order reads as under:
6. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute at this stage that the petitioner was admitted to the course in question only after the aforesaid Ordinance was passed, but submits that the petitioner was not informed about the span period at any time.
7. Having regard to the provisions of the Ordinance extracted above, I am of the
The court upheld the maximum 8-year period for completing the MBBS course, ruling that no interim relief could be granted due to absence of a prima facie case.
The court's decision was based on the principle of mandamus, allowing the petitioner to continue the MBBS course and take the III year examination.
Established academic rules must be adhered to, and courts cannot grant relief based solely on sympathy if it contradicts legal competence and authority.
The main legal point established is that the absence of a specific provision for a 'Second Mercy Attempt' and the need for evidence to support claims of illness during an examination.
An appeal is not maintainable without a substantive order from the lower court; adjournment does not equate to a decision on rights or liabilities.
A university must provide personal communication regarding changes in examination schedules to avoid unfairly denying students their opportunity to complete their course.
The court found it unreasonable to deny the candidate the opportunity to complete the degree based solely on the span period rule and did not consider it appropriate to put the onus entirely upon the....
Completion of mandatory training is a prerequisite for examination eligibility, with leave exceeding limits affecting qualification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.