The court upheld that an Ordinance quashed in its entirety cannot be selectively applied, emphasizing its comprehensive invalidation under the Indian Medical Council Act.

JUDGMENT

These intra-court Appeals by the Respondent – State Health University, seek to call in question a learned Single Judge’s common order dated 21.06.2023 whereby medical students’ W.P.No.16122/2022 and other connected matters having been favorued, the following order is made:

“In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-University to send such of the Answer Papers of the petitioners only, wherein the percentage difference amongst the valuations (two in the case of U.G. course and four in the case of P.G. course, as the case may be) in terms of 15.06.2012 Ordinance as worked out in paragraphs 25 and 26 (supra) for third or fifth valuation as the case may be, forthwith.”

2. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Appellant – University vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge fell in error in construing another Single Judge’s order (Justice Dixit’s) dated 10.08.2020 entered in W.P.No.31335/2019 (EDN-RES) & other companion matters between NEELESH MEHTA Vs. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & OTHERS inasmuch as, he treated the said judgment as having struck down Revaluation Ordinance of 29.03.2019 in a wholesale way, when it was struck down only qua MBBS students, and not as against others. In his support of submission, he invokes the doctrine of severability and tells that as against students other than of MBBS course, the Ordinance survives, notwithstanding the term “quashing the impugned ordinance in its entirety” employed in the said judgement. He hastens to add that the petitions wherein the said Ordinance has been quashed, belonged to non-MBBS students.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Students opposes the Appeals making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He points out that the judgement wherein the impugned Ordinance came to be quashed, was not confined to only MBBS students but, they included the students of AYUSH students. He further submits that a bare reading of the said judgement and the terminology employed in its operative portion leaves no manner of doubt that the subject Ordinance has been struck down, in lock, stock & barrel. He also disputes invokabilty of the doctrine of severability in matters like this. With this stand, he seeks dismissal of all these Appeals.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in these matters, having common question of law & facts, in the light of following discussion:

a) The first submission put forth on behalf of the appellant-University that the 2019 Ordinance has been struck down only qua the MBBS/MD students that are otherwise governed by extant MCI Regulations, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the operative portion of the order of a Single Judge (i.e., of Krishna S. Dixit J) specifically reads: “…a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Ordinance in its entirety…” It did not stop there; a further direction is issued to the appellant-University to cause valuation of all theory answer scripts of all the petitioners by a set of four evaluators in terms of Regulation 13(2) of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. There is absolutely nothing in the reasoning part of the said judgment that supports contention of the kind. It defies logic to say that even when the subject Ordinance has been quashed in its entirety, the same should be deemed to be kept alive qua others. If the intent of the judgment were to accord with the submission of the appellant, the text of the operative portion thereof would have been much different. Added, at paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it is specifically observed as under:

“…the Ordinance is apparently repugnant to the provisions of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 promulgated by the Medical Council of India u/s 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 , the same