Back
1995 Supreme(HP) 104
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
S.N.PHUKAN,R.L.KHURANA
MEENA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
H.P.UNIVERSITY - Respondent
C.W.P. Nos. 1502 of 1995 and 174 of 3995
Decided On : 12/27/1995
In C. W. P. No. 1502 of 1995:For the petitioner:Sh. K. D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents:Sh. D. C. Jishtu, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Sh. Inder Singh, Advocate General, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondent No. 5. Sh. Rajiv Sharma, for the applicant. In C. W. P. No. 1754 of 1995:For the petitioner:She K.D. Sood, Advocate, For the respondents:Sh. D.C. Jishtu, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1, Sh. Inder Singh, Advocate General, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondent No, 4.
The MCI regulations regarding the conduct of examinations are mandatory and binding on the respondents, and any examination conducted in contravention of these regulations is invalid.
Headnote:
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATIONS - CONDUCT OF EXAMINATIONS - MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - VIOLATION - ORAL, CLINICAL AND PRACTICAL EXAMINATION - CONDUCTED WITH ONE EXTERNAL EXAMINER - CONTRAVENTION OF REGULATIONS - FRESH EXAMINATION TO BE CONDUCTED.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitioners, Dr. Meena Sharma and Dr. Meenakshi Thakur, challenged the validity of the oral, clinical, and practical examination conducted for their M.D. Gynaecology and Obstetrics course on the grounds that it was held in contravention of the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the oral, clinical, and practical examination was conducted by a team of three examiners, out of which only one was an External Examiner, in violation of the MCI regulations, which require a minimum of four examiners, with at least two being External Examiners.
Issues: 1. Whether the MCI regulations regarding the conduct of examinations are mandatory and binding on the respondents? 2. Whether the oral, clinical, and practical examination conducted on 2-9-1995 was held in contravention of the MCI regulations? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fresh examination in accordance with the MCI regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the MCI regulations are mandatory and binding on the respondents, as they are framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1936, and have been approved by the Central Government. 2. The court found that the oral, clinical, and practical examination conducted on 2-9-1995 was held in contravention of the MCI regulations, as it was conducted by a team of three examiners, with only one External Examiner, instead of the required four examiners with at least two External Examiners. 3. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to a fresh examination in accordance with the MCI regulations, as the contravention of the regulations rendered the examination invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh oral, clinical, and practical examination for the petitioners in accordance with the MCI regulations within three months.
R.L. Khurana, J.—By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the abovementioned two writ petitions, being Civil Writ Petition No." 1502/95, Dr. Meena Sharma v. H P. University and others and Civil Writ Petition No. 1754/95, Dr Meenakshi Thakur v. H. P. University and others, since common question is involved.
2. The two petitioners have done their M.B.B S from the Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, in the years 1981 and 1991, respectively. Both of them joined M.D. Gyane course in the session 1992-95. They appeared in M. D. Gynaecology and Obstetrics examination held in August/September 1995 at Karala Nehru Hospital, Shimla. While the examination for four theory papers was held on 19th and 20th August, 1995, the oral and practical examination was conducted on 2nd September, 1995. The case of the petitioners is that though the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India provide that there shall be minimum number of four examiners, out of which atleast two (50%) shall be external examiners, who shall be invited from another recognised Universities and from outside the State, for the purpose of oral, clinical and practical test but only three examiners were appointed and out of whom only one was external examiner for the test held on 2nd September, 1995. Therefore, the oral, clinical and practical test held on 2nd September, 1995 having been held in contravention of the regulation of the Medical Council of India, stood vitiated. The result of petitioner Dr Meena Sharma has not been declared under the orders of this Court, while the petitioner Dr. Meenakshi Thakur has been declared "failed". The petitioners have further averred that they had represented against the illegal holding of the examination and declaration of the result by the respondents through representation dated 23rd September, 1995. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and declaring the oral and practical examination in Gynaecology and Obstetrics held on 2nd September, 1995 as null and void and for directing the respondents to hold fresh oral and practical examination in respect of the petitioners, in accordance with the regulations of the Medical Council of India.
3. Respondents No 2 to 4 have filed their reply-affidavit. No reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 5 Respondents No 2 to 4 have admitted that the two petitioners took the examination, which was conducted in the month of August/September 1995 It was admitted that the oral, clinical and practical examination was conducted by a team of three examiners, out of which only one was external examiner While admitting that the regulations of the Medical Council of India are mandatory in nature, it is averred that such regulations could only be complied with subject to smooth sailing of the examination system without being adversely affected by outside elements, such as natural calamities totally disrupting the normal way of leading life. Conducting the examination is a sacrosanct duty of the teacher but if the reasons are beyond the control, it bad to be made good going with the circumstances available in hand Ft is further averred that there were exceptional considerations for holding examinations and had to be got conducted with one external examiner, rather than postponing such examination for indefinite period because there were no fair and bright chances of the unpleasants weather, which had blocked the telecommunication and other normal way of travelling. The external examiners nominated for the purpose, namely, Dr. Ashi Sarin of Medical College, Patiala, Dr. (Miss) Subodh Das of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and Dr. (Mrs) Tripat Palkaur of Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi had informed and expressed their inability to conduct the oral, clinical and practical examination to be held on 2nd September, 1995. Though, Dr. Lakhbir Daliwal of PGI, Chandigarh had shown her willingness to conduct the oral,
