Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Dr. R. Geetha
Versus
Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, rep.by its Registrar, Anna Salai, Guindy & Others
W.P.No.17259 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
Decided on : 10-10-2011
P.G. Medical Education Regulation - Appointment of Internal Examiner - [M.D. Community Medicine] - [P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000] - The court discussed the appointment of internal examiners for practical examinations and viva-voce as per the P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000. It highlighted the qualifications and experience required for appointment as an internal examiner and how the appointment of an unqualified internal examiner influenced the petitioner's result.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the results of her practical exam and viva-voce for the M.D. Community Medicine course due to the appointment of an unqualified internal examiner. The petitioner alleged that the third respondent, who conducted the practical examination, was not eligible as per the P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the unqualified internal examiner had materially affected the petitioner's result in the viva-voce examination, as she was lacking six marks to pass. The court also emphasized the importance of assessment by fully qualified examiners and the right of students to be taught by fully qualified teachers.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the third respondent was qualified to be appointed as an internal examiner and whether the petitioner's result was materially affected due to the presence of the unqualified internal examiner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the unqualified internal examiner was in violation of the P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000 and had materially affected the petitioner's result. It emphasized the legal right of students to be assessed by fully qualified examiners and the obligation of educational institutions to preserve excellence in education.
Final Decision: The court quashed the petitioner's result in the practical and viva-voce for M.D. Community Medicine and directed the first respondent to conduct a re-examination with qualified internal examiners within two weeks.
1. By consent of the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the publication of results of the petitioner's registration No.20085401 dated 23.6.2011 to the course of M.D. Community Medicine insofar as it relates to the practical exam and viva-voce and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct the practical and viva-voce exam by a qualified internal examiner as provided under the P.G. Medical Education Regulation 2000.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) The petitioner, after passing M.B.B.S. Degree, joined in the Tamil Nadu Government Service in the year 2001 and she worked at Primary Health Centre in Erode District. She joined in D.G.O. course at Kasturibai Gandhi Hospital, which is attached to Madras Medical College and she came out as rank holder in the year 2007.
(b) Petitioner was selected for M.D. Course in Community Medicine and joined at Madras Medical College in the year 2008. In the theory examinations conducted after first year course of study, she scored first rank. According to the petitioner, she was an outstanding student throughout her studies.
(c) After completion of three years M.D. Course as per The Dr.M.G.R. Medical University norms, candidates should appear for theory examinations in four papers and for practical examination. The practical examinations are conducted for two days, which include viva-voce. On day one of practical examination, in the forenoon session, candidates should do long case and short case as well as viva-voce with case sheet and in the afternoon session, statistics examination with three sums is held and each sum carries 20 marks. On the second day in the forenoon pedagogy and Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) are conducted. These tests carry 50 marks. In the afternoon, viva-voce is conducted, which carries 50 marks.
(d) For conducting practical examination, internal and external examiners are appointed. Under PG Medical Examination Regulations, 2000 framed by the Indian Medical Council, no person shall be appointed as internal examiner in any subject unless he/she has three years experience in the concerned subject as PG teacher. The term P.G. Teacher is defined in Rule 11(1) of the amended regulation, which states that only those faculty members who possess total eight years of teaching experience of which five years should be after P.G. qualification and thereafter the said Teacher is treated as P.G. Teacher.
(e) The petitioner appeared in the theory papers and took part in the practical examination. One Dr.Umadevi, HOD, Community Medicine, K.M.C, Chennai, was initially appointed as one of the examiner for petitioner's practical examination, who is the seniormost recognised PG teacher in the subject of Community Medicine in the State of Tamil Nadu. But suddenly the third respondent, who completed PG degree only in the year 2007, who is not a P.G. Teacher qualified to be an internal examiner, was appointed as internal examiner in the place of Dr.Umadevi.
(f) The third respondent functioned as internal examiner in the practical examination and viva-voce. It is alleged that the third respondent gave only seven minutes time though the allotted time is ten minutes for the practical examination. It is alleged in the affidavit that after completion of the practical examination, the third respondent collected a sum of Rs.12,000/- from each students stating that he has to give gifts to the external examiners during the pedagogy session.
(g) The PG results were published in the internet of the first respondent University. The petitioner obtained first rank in theory papers. However, she was shown as failed in the practical and viva-voce. In the desertation petitioner obtained 71 marks out of 100.
(h) T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
