Bombay High Court
Millan Pradhan vs Union Of India Representd Thr The ... on 27 January, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:4857-DB
Digitally signed
by ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA NAIK
KRISHNA Date: WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
NAIK 2025.01.31
18:54:05
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2023
Millan Pradhan, aged about )
20 years, S/o-Simanchala Pradhan, Resident of )
Beguniapatana, PS-Ranpur, Dist-Nayagarh, Odisha ) .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Union of India, represented through the )
Secretary, Department of Health and Family )
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana, )
Azad Road, New Delhi )
2. The Medical Council of India )
Represented through it's Chairman, Pocket-14, )
Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110077 )
3. The Controller of Examination, )
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, )
Nashik, At Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nashik-422004 )
4. Unfair Means Inquiry Committee, )
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences; )
5. The Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra University )
of Health Sciences, Nashik-400004 )
6. National Medical Commission Undergraduate )
Medical Education Board, Pocket-14, )
Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-1, New Delhi-110077 )
7. Hon. Secretary, Department of Medical Education )
and Medicine, Mumbai-400032 ) ..... Respondents.
****
Mr. Hitesh P. Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner.
akn 1
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2025 11:21:15 :::
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
Mr. Ahutosh Mishra a/w. Mr. Sandeep Raman, Advocates for Union of India
- Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. S.P. Kamble,
Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No. 7-State
****
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 27th JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT (Per M. M. SATHAYE, J):
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking declaration that Rule No.
71.12.12(b) of the Ordinance Number 1/2024 issued by Respondent No. 5
titled as "Conduct of Examinations and Use of Unfair Means at Examination"
is ultra-vires. Further declaration is sought that Advisory dated 27/10/2021
with subject line "related to 1st MBBS Examination and promotion to 2nd
MBBS" issued by Respondent No. 6, is ultra-vires. The Petitioner further
seeks directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue with
the 3rd year course of MBBS and also to appear for his internal examination
and final examination of all subjects including re-examination of subjects of
1st MBBS Course. A further prayer is made seeking permission to permit the
Petitioner to be promoted to 3rd year MBBS course and further permission to
attend all the classes including extra classes for the purpose of completing
2nd and 3rd year MBBS course including internal examinations, practicals,
regular classes, re-examination.
3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions,
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
submitted that prayer clause (H3) of the Petition, seeking exercise of
discretion in permitting the Petitioner to migrate from the present college to
a college in Cuttack, is not pressed.
4. Few facts shorn of unnecessary details, necessary for disposal of the
Petition, are as under. The Petitioner is pursuing his MBBS degree course
from B. J. Government Medical College, Pune. The Petitioner has a 50%
locomotor permanent disability. The Petitioner appeared for "1 st MBBS 2019"
examination conducted in Winter-2022. On 16/06/2023, the Petitioner
received a letter from the Respondent No. 3, intimating a charge leveled
against him of being found written mobile number on the answer sheets
during Winter-2022 examination of 1st MBBS 2019, in subjects of Physiology-
I and Anatomy-I. The letter required the Petitioner to appear before the
Unfair Means Inquiry Committee on 26/06/2023 to show cause why the
punishment as stipulated in Ordinance No. 01/2014 should not be imposed.
The Petitioner appeared before the said committee, where a mistake was
pointed out to him and the Petitioner gave an explanation that he has
written all his answers with sincerity and honesty without any intention of
cheating but was not aware of the Rules. The Petitioner contended that he
was in disturbed state of mind and nervous and he already suffered from
physical disability. On 28/06/2023, the statement of marks of 1st MBBS 2019
examination was issued and the Petitioner noticed that against the subjects
of Anatomy and Physiology, a remark of "CC" appeared and the result was
shown as "FAIL Annulment of performance of examining at Winter-2022
exam" in subjects of Anatomy and Physiology. The Petitioner thereafter made
a representation to the Respondent No. 5, requesting inter alia to consider
the Petitioner's case as an exceptional case for not giving severe punishment
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
because in that case, he will loose entire academic year. In these
circumstances, the Petition is filed.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has urged
that Rules requiring the Petitioner to clear all subjects of the 1 st year MBBS
before he could enter the 2nd year MBBS course, is ultra-vires of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the applicable Rule No.
71.12.12(b) imposing harsh punishment of annulment of performance of the
examinee in a particular subject, is also ultra-vires of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that since the Petitioner has cleared 1 st
year MBBS subjects, he should be permitted to appear for 2 nd year
examination of MBBS course, otherwise the Petitioner will loose one
academic year.
6. Referring to the Affidavit-in-reply dated 21/10/2024 filed by
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Shetye, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent University of Health Sciences, submitted the Petitioner had
resorted to unfair means by writing his mobile number and also making an
appeal for giving him passing marks in 1 st MBBS examination in subjects of
Anatomy-I and Physiology-I on the answer book during Winter-22 session
examination. The said act of the Petitioner amounted to revealing his
identity, done with an intention to seek favour from the examiner/evaluator.
He contended that when the Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry
Committee on 26/06/2023 and gave his statement orally as well as in
writing, the Petitioner has accepted his lapse and has tendered an apology.
He submitted that as per clause 71.12.12(b) of the University Ordinance No.
1/2024, the punishment provided for this malpractice is "annulment of
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
performance of the examinee in the concerned subject", which has been duly
imposed. He contended that therefore, the result was declared as failed, as
the Petitioner's performance was annulled for two subjects. He submitted
that thereafter the Petitioner appeared in Summer 2023 examination for
clearing these two subjects, as a repeater, but could pass in Physiology
subject only. It is submitted that the Petitioner thereafter appeared for the
subject Anatomy, in Winter-2023 examination and passed the same, thereby
passing 1st MBBS examination completely. He contended that therefore, the
Petitioner has passed 1st MBBS fully, only in Winter-2023 and not before
that. It is submitted that under the applicable Rules and Regulations as well
as the policy of the University, a medical student is not allowed to keep term
(ATKT) for the 1st MBBS course. In other words, if the MBBS student fails in
even one subject of the 1 st year, he cannot take admission for 2 nd year. He
further submitted that since the Petitioner was not admitted to 2 nd year
course, he has not undergone the required 12 months training after passing
of 1st MBBS and as such, he is not eligible to appear for the examination of
the 2nd MBBS course without undergoing the course training. The necessary
regulations viz. "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment),
2019" framed by the Board of Governors (Now National Medical
Commission), Circular dated 12/06/2023 and "Phasewise Training & Time
distribution for professional development" are placed on record.
7. On a specific query by the Court, whether the Petitioner is interested
in pressing the prayer clause H3 seeking permission to migrate to the college
in Cuttack, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has specifically declined, on
instructions.
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
The relevant provision of Ordinance No. 1/2014 "Conduct of Examination
and Use of Unfair Means at an Examination" reads as under:
Sr. No. Nature of Malpractice Quantum of Punishment
71.12.12(b) Revealing identity in any form Annulment of the
in the answer-book by the performance of the
student/examinee at the examinee at the University
University or College or or College or Institution
Institution examination i.e. examination in that
writing his/her name or particular subject.
request/appeal for pass/help
or writing mobile no. etc.
[Emphasis supplied]
9. It is, therefore, clear that if the identity is revealed by the candidate in
any form in the answer book, including mobile number, the same amounts
to malpractice for which quantum of punishment prescribed is annulment of
performance of the candidate in the concerned examination in the
concerned subject. Considering the undeniable need for maintaining the
quality of education, especially in the field of medicine, where the candidate
is aspiring to practice a noble profession of medicine, in our considered
opinion, the punishment prescribed is appropriate and there is nothing harsh
or disproportionate about it. Therefore, the challenge to the constitutional
validity or vires of the said Rule, is only stated to be rejected.
10. So far as the challenge to the impugned Advisory dated 27/10/2021
(requiring the candidate passing 1st professional examination compulsory
before proceeding to 2nd MBBS training) is concerned, a copy of the "Phase
wise training and time distribution for professional development" placed on
record by the Respondent-University of Health Sciences, assumes
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
importance. It shows that a candidate/student, who fails in 1 st professional
examination, was not allowed to attend the 2 nd professional. We note that
the Rules provide that a student who fails in 2 nd professional examination is
allowed to join 3rd professional Part-I training, however, he is not allowed to
appear for the examination unless he has passed the 2 nd professional
examination. Therefore, the provision such as keeping the term (ATKT) is
provided while transition from 2nd year to 3rd year. However, for the
transition from 1st year to 2nd year, there is a clear bar and it is not allowed.
We agree with the obvious logic behind this rule that unless a foundational
first year of MBBS course is completed in all respect including passing all
subjects, a student can not be permitted to undertake further training. We
are dealing with medicine course here and strict quality check such as this
Rule / advisory, has to be maintained. The concerned applicable rule is made
by the experts. Therefore the said advisory is also appropriate in our
considered view, and the challenge to the constitutional validity or vires of
the said advisory is also rejected.
11. In that view of the matter, the stand of the Respondent - University in
not allowing the Petitioner to appear for 2nd year examination is well within
the bounds of the applicable rules. Since, the Petitioner is not even
permitted to take course/training for the 2nd year, unless he clears the 1st
year MBBS, obviously the Petitioner will be required to undergo 12 months
course/training after clearing the 1st year MBBS examination fully in Winter-
2023 session.
12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case to
exercise our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
WP.10994.2023(J)C.doc
13. There is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of
this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
