Conditional examination participation requires compliance with previous exam requirements; results publication is subject to fulfilling those criteria.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Petitioners in these writ petitions are the students of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery (BAMS) course studying at different Ayurveda Medical Colleges affiliated to the first respondent. They seek directions inter-alia for informing them the subjects in which they failed and to grant permission to write those failed subjects of the Final Professional Examination of the aforesaid course without clearing all the prior examinations of the First, Second, or Third Professional examinations of the said course.

2. The facts in WP(c) No. 48680/2025 are briefly referred for a proper comprehension of the issue involved. Petitioners’ claim that they had successfully completed the First, and Second Professional examinations of the BAMS course but had failed in some of the subjects in the Third Professional examination. They contended that they are entitled to appear for the Final professional Examination, notwithstanding their inability to clear the Third Professional Examination. Petitioners also pointed out that they had obtained an interim order in WP(C) No. 22656 of 2025 permitting them to write the Final Professional Examination as evident from Ext. P1. Referring to an incongruity between the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 2016 (for short ‘the CCIM Regulation’) and KUHS Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery Course Regulations, 2016 (for short ‘KUHS BAMS Regulation’), petitioners claimed that they should be informed of the subjects in which they had failed in the Final Professional Examinations to enable them to write those subjects again.

3. I have heard Sri. B. S. Sivaji, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. S. Ganesh, the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent University and Sri. M. S. Kiran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent.

4. Concedely, all these petitioners have failed to clear the third year examination either in its entirety or in some of the subjects. They had written the Final Professional Examination under orders of this Court. The orders permitting them to write the Final Professional Examination either stated that the publication of results will be subject to them clearing the Third Professional Examination or subject to further orders from this Court. It is in such circumstances, they seek a direction from this Court to publish the results of the subjects of the Final Professional Examinations in which they have failed.

5. In W.P(C).No.29326 of 2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court had reconciled the incongruity in the CCIM Regulation and the KUHS BAMS course Regulation and permitted the students to appear for the final year examination provisionally, without clearing the previous examination with a rider that the University need to publish the results of the Final Professional Examination only after the students clear the previous examinations.

6. When this Court had permitted the petitioners to write the final year examination, it was obviously under an express or implied condition that the results of the Final Professional Examination shall be published only after the students clear the Third Professional examination. Petitioners have failed to clear the Third Professional Examination. In such circumstances, they cannot claim any equity in the matter of publication of the results of the Final Professional Examination.

7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the results of