Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palem Teja Sree vs The State Of Ap on 22 November, 2024
APHC010482092024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24812/2024
Between:
Dr.Palem Teja Sree ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRAIAH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
2. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW
3. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of
Health Sciences
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 24812 of 2024
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the
respondents in not allowing the petitioner for remitting the examination
fee for the post graduate degree final examinations for the academic
year 2021-2022 to be commenced from 28.12.2024 to 04.01.2025 to
send the same to the 2nd respondent University on the ground of
shortage of attendance as the petitioner has not put up 80% of
attendance as regulated by the National Medical Council.
2. The issue in the writ petition is that the petitioner was made to
face the legal battle till it reached the logical end by the decision of the
apex court, and finally, the 2nd respondent allotted a seat M.D.
Dermatology in 3rd respondent college, now the present writ petition is
with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
condone the shortage of attendance or treat the same as complied in
light of the extraordinary circumstances in respect of the petitioner
herein, and to allow the petitioner to appear for the final examinations
for the MD Dermatology Course in the 3rd Respondent college
schedule to be commence from 28.12.2024 to 04.01.2025 and
consequently be considered for "M.D. Dermatology" degree by the 2 nd
respondent.
3. Facts of the case:
The case of the petitioner herein is that initially the petitioner has
got seat in M.S., (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and joined in ASRAM
Medical College, Eluru on 26.02.2022 and she prosecuted her studies
for some period. Later the petitioner herein has applied for
P.G.Medical Course and opted for the stream of Dermatology in the
2nd phase counselling conducted by the 2nd respondent University, the
said counselling was conducted by the 2nd respondent University from
16.04.2022 to 18.04.2022 and the result was declared on 21.04.2022
wherein the petitioner name was not announced.
4. Aggrieved petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.No.11706
of 2022 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order, dated
25.04.2022 directing the 2nd respondent herein "to allot a seat if the
petitioner is otherwise entitled to in the two vacancies which arose,
due to two students opting seats in All India Quota, and if the petitioner
fulfills all the requirements, the 2nd respondent may deal her
application in accordance with law."
5. The 2nd respondent University has rejected to give admission to
the petitioner in Dermatology vide letter, dated 30.04.2022.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.13299
of 2022, initially this Court granted interim order vide order, dated
02.05.2022 observing that "the counselling is not yet complete or the
dermatology seat which fell vacant due to non joining of Dr.Mool
Chand Suthar is not yet allotted to Mop Up counselling, and if the
petitioner is entitled for the said seat in dermatology after sliding from
gynecology (in view of the plea of the petitioner that Bhargav Krishna
has not reported pursuant to counselling), the authorities may deal
with the request of the petitioner in accordance with law, provided,
there is no other candidate, on merit, above the petitioner".
7. The said W.P.No.13299 of 2022 was allowed by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order, dated 04.08.2022 directing the 2nd
respondent University to allot a seat in M.D.Dermatolgoy, Venereology
and Leprosy (DVL) in 3rd respondent College.
8. Without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent
University approached the Apex Court vide Spl.L.A.No.14907 of 2022
and the said Spl.L.A. was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order,
dated 02.09.2022. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent University allotted
the seat to the petitioner on 03.09.2022.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined in the 3rd respondent
college on 05.09.2022. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that and
3rd respondent College is not allowing the petitioner for remitting the
examination fee thereby the petitioner is unable to participate in the
ensuing examinations to be commenced from 28.12.2024 on the
ground of shortfall of attendance.
10. The petitioner's counsel argues that the shortage of attendance
was not due to any negligence on the part of the petitioner but was
caused by the actions of the 2nd respondent / university. Despite this
Court allowing the writ petition W.P. No. 13299 of 2022 on 04.08.2022,
the university has not allotted a seat in Dermatology. The university
filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was
dismissed on 02.09.2022 the petitioner has lost almost 30 days of
classes. And the petitioner can avail the maternity/paternity or any
other leave. The petitioner attended classes at ASRAM College from
the date of joining until the date of relieving. Under these
circumstances, the counsel requests that the respondent be directed
to allow the petitioner to take in the ensuing examinations.
11. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High
Court in V.Sitalakshmi Vs. Registrar, A.P. University of Health Science,
Vijayawada and Ors.1, wherein it is held that "the shortfall of
attendance is due to delay of university on giving admission therefore,
the university is bound to condone shortfall in attendance within the
permissible limits and strongly deprecated the attitude of the University
in denying the fruits of the litigation to the petitioner".
12. And also relied on the judgment in Nazma Vs. Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Science and Ors.2, wherein it is observed that
"once availed the medical leave even that is to be counted so far as
attendance concerned to represent 80%, but for by extending the
period to prosecute the study by attendance".
1998 (4) ALD 455
2018 (6) ALT 518
13. Further relied on the judgment in M.Ranganatham Vs. University
of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and Ors.3, for the proposition that "the
change of curriculum by reason of transfer and it is also possible for
him to maintain the required attendance, the permission cannot
unreasonably be denied by the University".
14. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition directing the
respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examinations to be
commenced from 28.12.2024 to 04.01.2025.
15. Demurrer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the 2nd respondent as well as the 3rd respondent filed
counters submitting that the PG Degree students who are admitted
into Medical Colleges of Andhra Pradesh whose admissions are
approved by the University during the academic year 2021-2022 and
who have completed three years of study period (36 months) including
period of examinations are eligible to appear for the ensuing
examination. The students should put 80% attendance of working days
i.e., 751 days of 939 days for three years course (by 31.01.2025).
However, period of training will be extended by the same number of
days for whichever maternity/paternity/any other leave have been
availed in three years.
16. "The National Medical Council is the statutory body framed
regulations called as Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
1995 (2) ALT 755
2023 (hereinafter called as „Regulations 2023‟) has mandated the
course to be of three years i.e., 1095 days, which made it compulsory
for every student to complete the mandatory training period of three
years i.e., 1095 days -156 Sundays = 939 working days".
17. The petitioner has not put up 80% of attendance of working days
i.e., 751 days of 939 days for three years course by 30.01.2025. The
attendance sheet of the petitioner shows that she attended 688 days
out of 939 working days in 36 months M.D.(DVL) course and her
attendance is marked as 74.45% which is short of requisite 80% to
appear in the final examination. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for
any relief.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment
of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court in the case of
B.Yugandhar vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College4 wherein
the Division Bench, after noticing the judgment of the Apex Court in
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh 5, has held
that
"Considering that this case concerns the career of a young
student we tried to look at the matter with all possible
sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can
direct or compel an authority to do something which is
beyond its legal competence to do. Since the principal is the
only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his
competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not
2008 (2) ALT 529
AIR 1973 SC 221
see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if
the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for
condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short
point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the
petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his
academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of
the High Court, and dismiss the petitioner‟s appeal."
19. The judgment in the case of B.Yugandhar (referred supra) is not
applicable to the present case, as the authority in that case lacked the
legal competence to condone attendance beyond the prescribed limit.
In the present case, under the provisions of the Regulations 2023,
every student is required to complete the mandatory period of three
years from the date of joining. In instances of attendance shortage, the
student's period of study will be extended by the number of days
corresponding to any leave availed. The petitioner has specifically
asserted in her affidavit that she will attend the classes to compensate
for any shortage of attendance caused either by leave taken or by
delays attributable to the university. Only after completing the
mandatory period, as stipulated by the Regulations 2023, will the
respondents issue the required certificates, and the petitioner will be
entitled to receive them.
20. That although Dermatology Course is also specialized, serious
course Gynecology course is difficult Course than Dermatology
Course. And not attending classes for a period of 36 i.e. 5.55% days
does not make the petitioner in-eligible to write examination and failure
to adhere to the minimum required attendance and absence of
students will not result in defeat of the objective. As the petitioner had
to attend the mandatory period of classes.
21. However, as per the Regulations, every student is required to
complete a mandatory period of three years from the date of
enrollment. In the event of an attendance shortage, the student's
period of study will be extended by the number of days corresponding
to any leave taken, including maternity/paternity leave or excess
casual leave, during the three-year period. In the affidavit, the
petitioner asserts that she will complete the mandatory three-year
period, and only after fulfilling this requirement will she be eligible to
receive the certificates.
22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and
considering the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner, which are squarely applicable to the facts at hand, it is
evident that the delay was solely due to the actions of the university.
Had the seat been allotted in accordance with the directions of the
High Court, the petitioner would not have faced the issue of
attendance shortage. Furthermore, the Special Leave Petition filed by
the university before the Supreme Court was dismissed, eventually the
seat was allotted as per the directions of the high court.
23. Although the Dermatology course is specialized and rigorous,
the Gynecology course is considered more challenging. The
petitioner's failure to attend classes for a period of 36 days,
representing 5.55% of the total class days, does not render the
petitioner ineligible to sit for the examination. Failure to adhere to the
minimum required attendance and absence of student will result in
defeat of the objective as the course is not more challenging. And the
petitioner was required to attend the mandatory number of classes to
fulfill the attendance criteria as per the Regulations 2023, even after
giving examination.
24. Respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to allow the petitioner
to attend the ensuing examinations scheduled to be held from
28.12.2024 to 04.01.2025. Further, the petitioner is directed to
undertake and complete the necessary classes to fulfill the attendance
requirements mandated by the Regulations, 2023, in order to fulfill the
attendance shortage.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date : 22.11.2024
SPP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24812 of 2024
Date : 22.11.2024
SPP
