Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Subhashini Tomar and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. 5337 OF 2024.
Decided On : 12-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Ratnesh Chandra, Mahima Dixit
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Mrityunjay Pratap Singh
Attendance requirements for medical examinations must be strictly adhered to, and remedial classes do not retroactively qualify students for supplementary examinations.
Headnote:(A) Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 - Clause 11.1 - Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum Guidelines - Attendance requirements for examinations - Petitioners sought permission to appear in supplementary MBBS examination despite prior attendance shortfall, claiming remedial classes were held - Respondents contended attendance was incomplete as per institutional records and guidelines - Court found reliance on FAQs and regulations justified, denying petitioners' request. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 16)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Writ petitions cannot be entertained if there is a clear violation of established norms and guidelines. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were denied permission to appear in the supplementary examination due to incomplete attendance, despite claims of remedial classes. Respondents maintained that attendance did not meet required thresholds as per regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the respondents' decision, emphasizing adherence to attendance regulations and guidelines.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could appear in the supplementary examination despite prior attendance shortfall and the applicability of guidelines regarding attendance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adherence to attendance requirements is mandatory, and remedial classes do not retroactively fulfill eligibility criteria for examinations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Moin, J.
Heard Sri. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Diwakar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Sri. Ahkilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 4, Sri. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri. Mrityunjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Copy on respondent No.2 has not been served on the learned counsel who usually appears for respondent No.2 i.e. Sri. Abhinav Trivedi rather the same has been sent through Registered Post.
2. Instant petition has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in supplementary examination for the Third Professional (Phase III) Part II of MBBS Court which is going to commence from 21.06.2024 (erroneously typed as 1st week of June, 2024).
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are not permitting the petitioners to appear in the said examination on the ground that their attendance is not complete.
4. Sri. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners states that a specific averment has been made in para 19 of the petition that the attendance of the petitioners is complete in all the subjects now inasmuch as although earlier the petitioners were having short attendance which prevented them from appearing in the regular examination yet the shortage in attendance has been made good by the Institution by holding extra classes.
5. However, Sri. Mrityunjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6 on the basis of instructions states that attendance of none of the petitioners is complete consequently they cannot be permitted to appear in the said examination. Said statement has been made on the basis of instructions sent by the Dean of Institution to the University dated 03.02.2024.
6. Sri. Ratnesh Chandra learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the attendance of the petitioners was not complete at the time of regular examination yet as additional classes have been held for them and their attendance is made good, they would be eligible to appear to sit in the supplementary examination and thus the action on the part of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to appear in the supplementary examination, which is commencing from 21.06.2024, is patently bad in the eyes of law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on notice dated 11.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, which has been issued by respondent No.6 Institution which indicates that shortage of attendance is being made good for the students by holding additional classes.
7. On the other hand, Sri. Mrityunjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6 asserts that the attendance of the petitioners was not complete earlier with the result that they were not eligible to appear in the regular examination consequently once the attendance was not complete at the time of the regular examination, as such they cannot be permitted to appear even in the supplementary examination.
8. Sri. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has placed reliance on Clause 11.1 of Chapter VI of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, to contend that in order to appear in the professional examination, the attendance requirement is 75% in Theory and 80% in Practical/Clinical training.
9. Placing reliance on the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, the contention is that said Guidelines themselves provide that at the end of each professional year university examination will be conducted and if any student fails to clear university examination, he will appear in supplementary examination.
10. Further, placing reliance on the Frequently Asked Question
