Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, M. DHANDAPANI, JJ.
The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Rep. by its Registrar – Appellant
Versus
T.R. Shalini Priya – Respondent
W.A. No. 945 of 2017 & C.M.P. No. 13135 of 2017
Decided On : 09-08-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Hari Hara Arun Somasankar.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Godson Swaminath for M/s. Isaac Chambers, Mr. P. Sivashanmugasundaram and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi.
The central legal principle established is the need to relax the rigour of relevant provisions to enable meritorious students facing hardship to continue their studies.
Headnote:
Writ Appeal - University Examination - Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 - Regulation IV - migration of students - compassionate grounds - attendance requirement - technicalities - meritorious student - relaxation of rigour
Fact of the Case:
The appellant University appealed against the order allowing the writ petitioner to take part in the second year BDS examination. The writ petitioner sought to shift her admission from one dental college to another due to family circumstances, and the University had granted a no objection certificate with certain conditions. The University later communicated that the writ petitioner could not appear for the examination due to insufficient attendance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the writ petitioner, a meritorious student, faced hardship and sought to prosecute her studies at a nearby and less expensive place. The Court held that the technical view should not hinder the student's education and that the relevant provisions should be relaxed to enable the student to continue her studies.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, regarding migration of students and attendance requirements for examinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to view human conduct in its proper context and to relax the rigour of relevant provisions to enable meritorious students to continue their studies, especially in cases of hardship.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitioner to appear for subsequent examinations and directed the University to conduct a special examination for the subject missed. The Court also directed the University to evaluate the petitioner's performance, declare her results, and permit her to continue her education if she clears the examination.
1. This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University calling in question the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who allowed the writ petition instituted by the first respondent herein - writ petitioner and directed the appellant University to permit the writ petitioner to take part in the ensuing second year BDS examination scheduled to commence on 07.8.2017 and also directed that the results of the said examination of the writ petitioner shall not be declared or published until further orders.
2. This interlocutory order came to be passed in somewhat extraordinary circumstances. The writ petitioner was granted admission during the academic session 2015-16 in the sixth respondent - a private dental college. As ill-luck would have it, her father seems to have expired before she could join the BDS course. The family circumstances consequently necessitated her to migrate to another private college namely the fifth respondent college located at Tiruchengode, which is fairly far away by 400 Km from Chennai.
3. The writ petitioner applied for the no objection certificate from the Dental Council of India for shifting of her admission from the sixth respondent college to the fifth respondent college. That permission has been accorded by the Dental Council of India on 16.1.2017 conceding to the request of the writ petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the matter has been taken up with the appellant University, to which, both the fifth and the sixth respondent colleges are affiliated and which is the parent university conducting annual examinations for BDS course and only upon qualifying at the examinations, the necessary degrees to the students should be awarded. The appellant university, through its proceedings dated 28.3.2017, granted the no objection certificate for shifting of college by the writ petitioner from the sixth respondent college to the fifth respondent college.
4. However, while granting permission, two caveats have been entered by the appellant university. One is that there should be a clear cut vacancy at the transferee college as per the norms of the Dental Council of India. The other is that the writ petitioner has to complete 240 teaching days in the second year BDS course before appearing at the second Professional Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) examination at the transferee dental college.
5. Accordingly, the fifth respondent intimated the Academic Officer of the appellant university that the writ petitioner joined the second BDS course on 30.3.2017 in their college. She also produced the transfer certificate from the sixth respondent dental college. In that transfer certificate, against column No. 11 relating to the date on which, the student actually left the institution, it was noted as 05.9.2016. It was also noted therein that the transfer certificate has been applied for on 31.3.2017 and it has been granted on 31.3.2017 itself. From 31.3.2017 onwards, the attendance marked in the fifth respondent college alone was sought to be taken into account and consideration by the appellant university for purpose of enabling the writ petitioner to appear for the second year BDS examinations.
6. The appellant university, by its communication dated 20.6.2017, informed the fifth respondent college that the request of the candidate (writ petitioner) to appear for the university examination of second year BDS in August 2017 could not be considered before completing 240 days of prescribed study from 30.3.2017 subject to fulfillment of other regulations pertaining to the examinations. It is in this backdrop, the writ petition came to be instituted and the learned Single Judge granted interim directions to permit the writ petitioner to appear for the examinations. The learned Single Judge directed the result of the writ petitioner not to be announced. It is against that order, the present writ appeal is preferred.
7. Sri. Hari
