2011 Supreme(Mad) 4496

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Rep. by its Registrar & Another
Versus
P. Anand & Others
Writ Appeal Nos. 901 to 909 of 2011 & Batch of Writ Petitions & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On :Decided on : 16-11-2011

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 & 14 AND SCHEDULE ENTRY 26 LIST 25 - Education - Examination - Legality, Validity and propriety of the new guidelines evolved by the appellant - Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for clinical/viva-voce examination and/or pattern of evolution of MBBS Examination - Admittedly, M.B.B.S. seats have been reserved in all colleges in the country for all India quota in which candidates throughout the country compete for seats. Similarly quota has also been prescribed for post graduate courses as well. Therefore, MCI being conscious of the fact that there should not only be a uniform pattern of education, but uniform examination regulations which deals with attendance, internal assessment, University examination and distribution of marks to various disciplines framed under Regulation. In the earlier part of this order, In regulation 12(4) of the MCI Regulation, a perusal makes it clear that a candidate would be declared pass in each of the subject if he/she obtained 50% in aggregate with a minimum of 50% in theory including orals and minimum of 50% in practicals/clinicals. These regulations having been framed by a Central body are not merely directory, but are binding on the appellant University. Therefore, the University may not justified in framing a regulation which is inconsistent with the MCI Regulation - It is evidently clear that as per MCI Regulation passing in each subject a candidate must obtain 50% of the marks in the aggregate. The method of calculating the passing marks states that theory including orals and practicals shall be taking into consideration. However, the impugned guidelines issued by the appellant University has given a complete goby to such requirement and when the provisions of Regulation 12(4) are clear and unambiguous the appellant University alleging that it is enhancing the standards has Infact set at naught the Regulation of the MCI. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a student has to secure 50% of the total marks for theory with orals, 50% of marks for practicals/clinicals and 50% of the aggregate (total of external and internals) and candidate must have 35% internal assessment for eligibility to appear for the University examination. Therefore, the crux of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the aggregate mark in practicals and clinicals has to be taken together as 50% and there is absolutely no scope for the appellant University to divide the clinical subject into two stipulating minimum pass mark in each of the subject.

       This undoubtedly, is in direct conflict and inconsistent with the MCI Regulations. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Entry 25 in List III, the appellant University cannot introduce a guideline which contradicts the MCI Regulation or a guideline inconsistent with the criteria fixed by MCI.

       ORDER WHETHER OFFENDED ARTICLE 14 - The impugned guidelines issued by the appellant University is inconsistent with Regulation 12(4) of the MCI Regulation and the same cannot be stated to be prescribing higher standards.

       Students who have completed M.B.B.S. Course from other Universities which follow MCI Regulation have been permitted to undergo internship in the colleges affiliated to the appellant University and in many/cases if the impugned guidelines of the appellant University is applied to such candidates they have to be declared as failed candidates. However those candidates have been permitted to undergo internship. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not deny the fact that such students have been permitted to undergo internship, but states that it is done in rarest of rare case. Further, students on completion of their M.B.B.S course from other Universities which follow MCI Regulation are permitted to apply for and secure admission to post graduate courses offered by the appellant University though such candidates are deemed to have failed in the M.B.B.S course by applying the impugned guideline.

       These facts clearly established that the students undergoing the courses under the appellant University have been discriminated and treated differently from those candidates who have or had undergone M.B.B.S course from other Universities. Therefore, the action of the appellant University does not satisfy the test of reasonableness and it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

       The academicians were of the firm view that this was in lieu of having a separate paper in Orthopaedics which will be a increased burden on the students. However, the appellant though took a decision on 09.08.2011, did not implement this resolution during the examination held in August 2011. The partial modification was approved on 14.06.2011 itself and communicated on 09.08.2011, yet without applying such modification, the appellant University applied the impugned guidelines, dated 14.01.2011. This action is arbitrary. Further, it is pointed out that the main examination for final year M.B.B.S course Part II for the 2006-07 batch was conducted during February 2011 and the examination in August 2011 is a supplementary examination. Thus it appears that the appellant University while conducting the supplementary examination in August 2011 applied the impugned guideline which was not made applicable for the main exam held in February 2011. The procedure adopted by the appellant University does not satisfy the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.

       Result : Writ Appeals are dismissed and Batch of Writ Petitions are allowed.