Subhashini Tomar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20717 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Subhashini Tomar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical ... on 12 June, 2024

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42935
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5337 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Subhashini Tomar And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education And Training, Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Chandra,Mahima Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Mrityunjay Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. 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 GyanendraKumar 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 GyanendraKumar 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 Questions (hereinafter referred to as 'FAQs') related to CBME Course Curriculum more particularly Question No.3, argument of Sri GyanendraKumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 is that the said question has been answered by indicating that in case student's attendance is less than 75% for theory and less than 80% for practical/clinical training, the student cannot appear in supplementary examination following the regular annual examination and that such student is required to take classes with junior batch commencing in the next academic year to compensate for his attendance deficit, especially the course that he has missed and that he will be eligible to appear in the examination in the next academic year only. A copy of the said FAQs has been filed as Annxure-10 to the petition.

11. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Guidelines and Regulations the argument of Sri GyanendraKumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 along with Sri Mrityunjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6 is that even if additional classes have been held for the petitioners in order to make good the deficit in their attendance which was there at the time of the regular examination yet keeping in view the aforesaid Guidelines and FAQs, the petitioners can only be permitted to appear in the examination in the next year only and not for the supplementary examination this year.

12. In this regard, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsels for the respondents on a judgment of this Court passed in Writ C No.10307 of 2023 In Re: Pranav Labana vs The Registrar Atal Bihari Vajpayee University, Lucknow & Anr., decided on 12.03.2024.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it emerges that the petitioners are seeking to appear in the supplementary examination being conducted by the respondents for the Third Professional (Phase III) Part II MBBS Court starting from 21.06.2024.

14. Admittedly the petitioners were not permitted to appear in the regular examination when it was held on account of having shortage in their attendance. The said shortage is said to have been made good by holding additional classes for them as emerges from the perusal of the certificate issued by the Institution dated 11.01.2024. The said certificate is a sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioners for appearing in the supplementary examination inasmuch as the contention is that once their shortage in attendance has been made good by holding supplementary classes for them consequently they can be permitted to appear in the supplementary examination.

15. The aforesaid argument is found to be patently misconceived considering the FAQs issued by the National Medical Commission which specifically provides that if the student's attendance is less than 75% for Theory and less than 80% for Practical/Clinical training, the student cannot appear in the supplementary examination following regular annual examination rather will only be eligible to appear in the examination in the next academic year only. Once the said FAQs specifically addresses the situation, as has arisen in the instant case i.e. the shortage of the attendance of the petitioners at the time of the regular examination and which has been sought to be remedied by holding additional classes subsequent thereto yet considering the FAQs, as indicated above, as well as the Guidelines that have been issued by National Medical Commission, the petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the said supplementary examination and would only be eligible to appear in the examination in the next academic year.

16. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court in the case of Pranav Labana (supra) wherein this Court has held as under:-

"7. It is thus evident that shortage of attendance of petitioner was duly communicated to petitioner and he was aware of the same. Even otherwise, once there is a norm requiring minimum eligibility for appearance in a specialized course such as M.B.B.S., no deviation therefrom can be permitted, particularly as in the present case when petitioner was fully aware of the shortage of attendance.

8. A perusal of the actual attendance of petitioner as indicated in paragraph-17 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 clearly indicates that there is serious shortage of attendance by petitioner some times falling as far low as 36% against the stipulated 75%.

9. In view of the norms prescribed by the Nation Medical Council which is required to be adhered to and in view of the actual shortage of attendance percentage by petitioner, no relief can be granted to him."

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.6.2024

prateek