Bombay High Court
Maviya Niyaz Ahmed Khan vs Maharashtra University Of Health ... on 18 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 W.P.No.2203.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2203 OF 2021
Maviya Niyaz Ahmed Khan,
..VS..
Maharashtra University of Health Science, through its Registrar, Nashik and Anr.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H. S. Chawhan, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 18.08.2021
Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a
submission that this petition is of the same category as
the petitions mentioned in the order dated 30.06.2021
passed in Civil Writ Petition No.2265 of 2021 and
therefore, he prays for adjourning the petition awaiting
the result of the petitions, as those petitions are still
pending before the Aurangabad Bench. There is an
order placed on record dated 08.06.2021 passed by the
Division Bench at Aurangabad, it shows that the above
referred petitions are still pending for consideration.
3. Shri Abhijeet Deshpande, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1 relying upon the view
already taken in the identical matter by the Division
Bench at Principal Seat, Mumbai in the case of Pratiksha
Abasaheb Bhosale Vs. The Union of India through its
Secretary and Ors., decided on 08.06.2021, submits that
no purpose is going to be served by keeping this petition
pending, notwithstanding the fact that some similar
petitions are pending before Aurangabad Bench. He
points out that the view taken at Mumbai Bench is that
as long as Clause 4(d) of Scheduled - I of the Indian
Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of
Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations,
2016 (for short the "Rules 2016") stays in the statute,
there is nothing that this Court can do to exercise its
discretion in favour of a student seeking indulgence of
one more chance in addition to five chances already
availed by him or her in clearing some of the subjects of
first year B.A.M.S. course.
4. We have gone through the above referred
judgment dated 08.06.2021. It does categorically decide
that the Rules in question being in operation since the
year 2016, sixth chance cannot be availed of in
contravention of the Rules 2016 and that there are clear
stipulations on the subject and, therefore, no mandamus
as sought for can be issued. Nevertheless, considering
the fact that similar petitions are pending before the
Aurangabad Bench, we would like to give one more
chance to the petitioner in the matter.
Put up after four weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
