Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA, J.
Aheli Bal
Versus
The Director Jipmer & Another
W.P. No. 21814 of 2013
Decided On : 25-04-2014
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Ms.Aheli Bal, a brilliant student who got the 27th rank in the medical entrance examination on all India basis, was selected purely on merits by the first respondent-Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry and after joining the M.B.B.S. Course, she cleared the first semester and also wrote all the subjects in the second semester examination held between 7th June, 2013 and 19th June, 2013. But the provisional list was published on 23.7.2013 in the notice board of the first respondent showing that the petitioner failed in the subject of anatomy, although she secured more than 50% in aggregate in all the subjects.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry Act, 2008 (JIPMER Act) was enacted to develop the JIPMER as one of the institutions of national importance with a specific object to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in order to demonstrate a high standard of medical education. The Court further held that the non obstante clause provided in Section 23 of the JIPMER Act makes the position of the Institute clear that the JIPMER shall have the power to grant medical, dental, nursing degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Court also held that the curriculum framed by the JIPMER is in exercise of power conferred under Section 24(3) of the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research Puducherry Regulations, 2008 and there is no requirement for gazette notification of the curriculum of M.B.B.S. Course, as it is applicable only to students admitted to JIPMER in 2008-09 onwards.
Issues: 1. Whether the curriculum framed by the JIPMER is applicable to the petitioner, who was admitted to the M.B.B.S. course in JIPMER in 2012-13? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a pass in the subject of anatomy, even though she failed to obtain the minimum 65 marks in practical? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the curriculum of 2008-09 onwards of JIPMER?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The JIPMER Act was enacted to develop the JIPMER as one of the institutions of national importance with a specific object to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in order to demonstrate a high standard of medical education. 2. The non obstante clause provided in Section 23 of the JIPMER Act makes the position of the Institute clear that the JIPMER shall have the power to grant medical, dental, nursing degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 3. The curriculum framed by the JIPMER is in exercise of power conferred under Section 24(3) of the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research Puducherry Regulations, 2008 and there is no requirement for gazette notification of the curriculum of M.B.B.S. Course, as it is applicable only to students admitted to JIPMER in 2008-09 onwards.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated and the M.P.Nos.1 and 3 of 2013 are also dismissed. For the very same reasons, the prayer of the petitioner to challenge the curriculum of 2008-09 onwards of JIPMER is also rejected.
1. Ms.Aheli Bal has come to this Court seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondent-JIPMER, Puducherry to treat the marks secured by her in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a “pass” and to pass further orders.
2. Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ms.Aheli Bal, a brilliant student who got the 27th rank in the medical entrance examination on all India basis, was selected purely on merits by the first respondent-Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry and after joining the M.B.B.S. Course, she cleared the first semester and also wrote all the subjects in the second semester examination held between 7th June, 2013 and 19th June, 2013. But the provisional list was published on 23.7.2013 in the notice board of the first respondent showing that the petitioner failed in the subject of anatomy, although she secured more than 50% in aggregate in all the subjects. When the petitioner enquired with the first respondent, she was informed that so far as the practical part of anatomy subject is concerned, when the minimum mark is 50 and for practical internal assessment, the minimum mark is 11, however, the aggregate marks should be 65, but the petitioner having got the minimum of 50 marks in practical and 13 marks under practical internal assessment, miserably failed to get the aggregate of 65 marks, as she secured only 63 out of 130 marks. Hence, two marks less the minimum pass percentage of 50% has made her to fail in the subject of anatomy. However, so far as the theory part of anatomy subject is concerned, the petitioner secured 120 out of 220 marks, which is more than 50% of marks. Moreover, even in the aggregate for the subject of anatomy as a whole, the petitioner has secured 183 out of 350 marks, which is also more than 50% marks. As a matter of fact, when the requirement prescribed by the Medical Council of India under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 states that a candidate securing in each of the subjects 50% in aggregate with a minimum of 50% in theory including oral and the minimum of 50% in practical/clinical to be given a pass in the subject, while so, the petitioner, having secured the total of 183 marks out of 350 marks in the subject of anatomy as a whole as against 50%, should be declared as pass in the subject of anatomy, since the petitioner has complied with the benchmark prescribed by the Medical Council of India under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. But to her shock and surprise, the first respondent informed about the concept of break system stating that as per Regulation 7(3) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, a failed candidate could attend the subsequent semester only on clearing the failed subject in the subsequent examination after six months and till then, would not be permitted to attend the next semester. In view of that, the petitioner was denied permission to attend the third semester classes that had commenced on 29.7.2013 without any written order to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner and her father made representations in writing on 27.7.2013 and 30.7.2013 with a request to the first respondent to consider the claim on the aforesaid facts and permit the petitioner to attend the classes along with her original batch to continue her studies. Even though the petitioner applied for re-totalling by paying Rs.500/-towards the same on 1.8.2013, there was no response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to come to this Court.
3. Continuing her arguments, Ms.R.Vaigai further contended that when the first respondent has given both the maximum marks and the minimum marks to be secured in the subject, as per the following table,
Theory Theory
- IA ORAL Theory
Total Practical Practical Total Grand Total
Max.
Marks
160 40 20 220 100 30 130 350
Min.
Marks
64 14 0 110 50 11 65 175
the petition
AI
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
