Alok Bansal And Ors. vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5247 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Judgment reserved on : 14.09.2017
                   Judgment delivered on : 20.09.2017

+      W.P.(C) 5868/2017

       ALOK BANSAL & ORS                                 ..... Petitioners

                          Through:    Mr Akhil Sibal, Sr Adv with
                                      Mr Shivendra Singh, Ms Kahnavi
                                      Mitra and Ms Aditi Phatak, Advs
                          versus

       GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ORS

                                                            ..... Respondents

                          Through     Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr.Adv with Ms.
                                      Anita Sahani, Adv for R-1.

                                      Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja Sarkar,
                                      Ms.Michelle Biakthansangi Das and
                                      Mr. Tarun Verma, Advs for R-2/MCI.

                                      Mr. Suresh Chandra Sati, Central
                                      Govt. Pleader with Mr. Pradeep C.
                                      Sati, Advs for R-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 There are six petitioners before this Court. They are post graduate

students (batch 2014-17) pursuing MD (General Medicine) from Vardhman

Mahavir Medical College in Safdarjung Hospital which is affiliated to

respondent no.1 (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University).

2 Petitioners had taken their final MD examination in the months of

May and June, 2017. Grievance is that the practical examination was

conducted in violation of the principles contained in the Regulation 14 read

with Appendix II of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations). The minimum number of

examiners was required to be 4 out of which at least 2 (50%) would be

external examiners; they would be invited from other recognized universities

from outside the State. This mandate for the external examiners to be from

recognized universities outside the State had not been followed and one of

the aforenoted examiners was an examiner from the institute within the State

of Delhi i.e. the Lady Harding Medical College. The mandate of this

Regulation having been violated a prayer has been made that the present

petitioners be permitted to be re-examined for the clinical/practical and oral

examination for the purposes of awarding of their Post Graduate Degree.

3 Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. Respondent

no.1 submits that the petitioners are post graduate students of the Vardhman

Medical College which is affiliated to respondent no.1. A total number of

227 students appeared in the final examination. The result of the said final

examination was accordingly declared which was for both theory and

practical. Regulation 14 of the said Regulations stipulates that there shall be

4 examiners and 50% of the 4 examiners (i.e. 2 examiners) shall be External

Examiners from recognized university outside the State; has in no manner

been violated. The usual procedure followed is that the examiners (from the

approved list) who have to conduct the examination are contacted

telephonically. After many telephonic conversations and efforts, 2 external

examiners from other universities outside Delhi who had agreed to act as

external examiners were appointed. The examiners who had given their

consent were Professor Rajesh Rajput, PGIMS, Rohtak and Dr.

P.K.Dandona, SGP University, Haryana. Dr. P.K.Dandona had however

expressed his inability to act as an external examiner. Thereafter in spite of

the efforts by the respondent University to get an external examiner from a

university outside the State of Delhi not being fruitful Dr.Madhur Yadav

from Lady Harding Medical College had been appointed as the second

external examiner; Dr.Madhur Yadav had the necessary adequate academic

qualification. This was not a flouting of the Regulations as there is an

adequate power with the University which permits the University to exercise

its discretion in such exigency.

4 In the course of arguments respondent no.1 had been directed to file

an additional affidavit; this was vide order dated 08.8.2017 asking

respondent no.1 to detail the efforts made by respondent no.1 to procure the

service of an external examiner from any other recognized university outside

the State of Delhi in lieu of Dr.P.K.Dandona. The details of this explanation

are contained in said additional affidavit which has been highlighted by

learned counsel for respondent no.1. The said stand of respondent no.1

reads herein as under:

"I state that as a routine affair reasonable efforts are usually taken by the examination branch to appoint external examiners for all the courses. As and when the examination branch receives the regret from the initially appointed external examiners, by considering date of examination nature of course etc. In order to avoid further delay, the approved panel of examiners are contacted through telephone to find out their convenience to be the external examiners. In the present case as well, after receipt of the regret letter other empanelled external examiners were contacted on telephone, but all the experts contacted, showed their inability to perform the duty of external examiner on 5th to 7th June 2017. However, the examination branch does not maintain any documentation in this regard. A compiled detail of regrets received from the external examiners (PG Medical courses) is annexed hereto as Annexure R-A/1."

5 Submission being that after receiving the regret letter from

Dr.P.K.Dandona, other external examiners were contacted but they had

expressed their inability to act as an external examiner as a result of which

Dr.Madhur Yadav was appointed as the external examiner. Annexure

RA-1 filed along with the affidavit has been highlighted. It is pointed out

that regret had been expressed on this count by 16 examiners and they were

replaced by substitutes but qua three institutes (appearing at serial no.2, 15

and 16 of Annexure RA-1) no examiner could be found, as a result of which

it necessitated respondent no.1 to appoint Dr.Madhur Yadav for the

respondent college. The concern of the petitioners is evidenced at serial

no.15 of the Annexure RA-1. As per this chart the earlier External Examiner

Professor P.K.Dandona, Department of Medicine had expressed his regret on

14.3.2017 and in his place Dr.Madhur Yadav, Professor Lady Harding

Medical College had been appointed on 29.5.2017 to conduct this

examination. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has highlighted

Regulation 14 of the said Regulations (to be discussed later).

6 Respondent no.2 (Medical Council of India) has filed a separate

counter affidavit. Initially it was by way of a short reply. The stand of

respondent no.2 is that no regulation has been violated by respondent no.1; it

has supported the stand of respndent no.1. It is pointed out that the said

Regulations had in fact been amended in the year 2008 and by virtue of this

amendment which was subsequently clarified in the meeting of the Post

Graduate Medical Education Committee of the Council (dated 30.12.2016)

this examination has to take place as a whole i.e. both the theory and the

practical papers together and if the candidate does not appear in the theory he

should be treated as absent and he would automatically fail as passing in

both theory and practical held together is essential. The minutes of the

meeting of the Post Graduate Medical Education Committee of the Council

(dated 30.12.2016) had been reproduced in the counter affidavit of

respondent no.2. They read herein as under:

"The Postgraduate Medical Education Committee considere the matter and decided that as per Regulations, the candidate cannot appear for the examination I parts i.e. theory and practical separately in separate sessions. If the candidate does not appear in the theory, it is to be treated as absent & candidate will automatically fail because as per the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations passing in theory and practical held together is essential. Candidates will have to appear again in both - theory and practical together.

There is no provision in the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulation that the candidate can appear separately i.e. once in theory and next time in clinical paper examination."

7 Submission of learned counsels for respondents co-jointly being that

besides the fact that Regulation 14 of the said Regulations has not been

violated; that apart the prayer made in the petition seeking a re-conduct of

the practical examination alone is not permissible as the examination has to

be taken as a whole i.e. both the theory and practical paper.

8 In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners by

laying emphasis on Clause (b) and Clause (c) of Regulation 14(1) points out

that Clause (b) has clearly been violated. Attention has also been drawn to

Appendix II and the guidelines for appointment of Examiners. Submission

is that Regulation 14(1)(b) is a mandate and in no manner does it give

discretion to the respondents to have an examiner from within the State and

reliance by the respondents on sub clause (e) of Regulation 14 (1) along with

Clause 2 of Appendix II is a misunderstanding of the legal position.

Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Madras High Court in

M.Venkatesan Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University

MANU/TN/3282/2009 delivered on 25.11.2009 wherein also Regulation

14(2) was the subject matter of discussion; it is pointed out that where one of

the external examiners was from within the State itself the Court had found it

to be a flouting of the mandatory directions contained in Regulation 14; not

being a procedural irregularity, the examination had stood cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that that this Court has wide

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to mould a relief and if

this Court is of the view that the Regulation has been flouted; it may not be

necessary to cancel the entire examination but permission may be granted to

the petitioners to have a re-examination for the practical/clinical and oral

course. Reliance has been placed upon 2015 (6) ALD 546 Kanigalpula

S.P.Manjeera and Ors. Vs. Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences and Ors.

a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to substantiate this

submission. Submission being that where the Court had drawn a conclusion

that the said Regulations had been flouted a re-examination of the practical

examination alone had been permitted. Such a permission can be granted.

Reliance has also been placed upon 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 21143 Ajith

Kumar Vs. University of Kerala. It is pointed out that although this was a

Ph.D.course but the proposition enunciated in the said judgment would also

apply to the facts of the present case. Additionally reliance has also been

placed upon a judgment of the Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court

reported as ILR 1995 4 HP 2794 Dr.Meena Sharma Vs. H.P.University and

Ors. Submission being that in this case also Regulation 14 was the subject

matter of the discussion and where the Court had found that one of the two

External Examiners was not actually external (within the meaning of Clause

(b) of Regulation 14(1); conduct of a fresh oral and practical/clinical

examination had been ordered. It is argued that in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar

3584 Vyshnavi A.Rao Vs.Rajiv Gandhi University a similar direction had

been given which was only for a re-conduct of the practical/clinical and viva

voce examination.

9 Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.1 points out that such a

permission cannot be granted. The discretionay powers granted to the

university are culled out from a reading of Regulation 14(1)(e) along the

Appendix II and the use of the word "ordinarily" as appearing in Clause (2)

of the Appendix II clearly explains that where the University after all efforts

has not been able to procure the presence of an external examiner from

outside the State, this being the "ordinary" rule, in the alternate respondent

no.1 could procure the presence of external examiner from within State

itself. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has placed reliance upon the

definition of the word "ordinarily" as has been discussed by the Apex Court

in AIR 1961 SC 1346 Kailash Chandra Vs.Union of India. It is pointed out

that "ordinarily" does not mean regularly but usually and normally. For the

same proposition reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the

Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported as 1977 LawSuit (Ker) 77

and a judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court reported as

AIR 1987 Ori 215; submission being that the word "ordinarily" as used in

Appendix II read with Clause (2) of Regulation 14(1) making the appendix a

part of the said Regulations carves out an exception which in the nature of a

proviso in favour of the respondent University.

10 These arguments of respondent no.1 have been adopted by respondent

no.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 additionally points out that the

relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted as in all subsequent

judgments i.e. after the minutes of the meeting of the Post Graduate Medical

Education Committee of the Council (30.12.2016) a clarification has been

made explaining that both the theory and the practical/clinical examinations

have essentially to be conducted together and the result of the examinations

has to be declared as a whole. Submission being that after this explanation

had been given by the Committee on 30.12.2016 the subsequent judgments

of the Benches all over the country have supported this explanation and held

that even presuming that there is a violation of the Regulations, the entire

examination has to be cancelled. The prayer made by the petitioners seeking

a re-examination of the practical/clinical and the oral examination by itself is

not permissible. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Punjab and

Haryana High Court in CWP No.8366/2016 (O& M) Ravinder Kaur Vs.

Medical Council of India and Ors. delivered on 04.7.2016. Submission

being that the Court had drawn a conclusion that the said regulations

provided that the examination has to be passed as a whole; a candidate had to

obtain 50% marks in theory paper and 50% in practical/clinical examination

separately and one cannot be segregated from the other. For the same

proposition reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Bench of

Kerala High Court in WP(C) No.27404/2016 Dr.Rajeev K.S. and ors. Vs.

Kerala University of Health Sciences delivered on 17.10.2016 wherein the

guidelines of the minutes of the Committee of the Medical Council of India

dated 30.12.2016 had been considered and it was held that in the light of this

clarification of respondent no.2, the theory and practical paper could not

segregated.

11 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.

12 What has to be first and foremost interpreted by this Court is the

relevant Regulation of the Post Graduate Medical Education Council

Regulations, 2000. These Regulations are dated 22.8.2000. These

Regulations have been made by the Medical Council of India in exercise of

the powers conferred upon it by Section 33 read with Section 20 of the

Indian Medical Council of India Act, 1956. This is with the previous

sanction of the Central Government. Regulation 14 is relevant for the

purposes of this petition. It reads herein as under:

"14. EXAMINATIONS

The examinations shall be organised on the basis of grading or making system to evaluate and certify candidates level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in theory as well as practical separately shall be mandatory for passing the whole examination. The examination for M.S., M.D, M.Ch shall be held at the end of 3 academic years (six academic terms) and for diploma at the end of 2 academic years (four academic terms). The academic terms shall mean six months training period.

The above clause 14 is substituted in terms of Gazette Notification published on 20.10.2008 and the same is as under:-

"The examinations shall be organised on the basis of „Grading‟ or „Marking system‟ to evaluate and to certify candidate‟s level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training. Obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in „Theory as well as „Practical‟ separately shall be mandatory for passing examination as a whole. The examination for M.D./ MS, D.M., M.Ch shall be held at the end of 3rd academic year and for Diploma at the end of 2nd academic year. An academic term shall mean six month‟s training period.

(1) EXAMINERS

(a) All the Post Graduate Examiners shall be recognised Post Graduate Teachers holding recognised Post Graduate qualifications in the subject concerned.

(b) For all Post Graduate Examinations, the minimum number of Examiners shall be four, out of which at least two (50%) shall be External Examiners, who shall be invited from other recognised universities from outside the State. Two sets of internal examiners may be appointed one for M.D./M.S. and one for diploma.

(c) Under exceptional circumstances, examinations may be held with (three) examiners provided two of them are external and Medical Council of India is intimated the jurisdiction of such action prior to publication of result for approval. Under no circumstances, result shall be published in such cases without the approval of Medical Council of India.

(d) In the event of there being more than one centre in one city, the external examiners at all the centres in that city shall be the same. Where there is more than one centre of examination, the University shall appoint a Supervisor to coordinate the examination on its behalf.

The above clause 14.1(d) is deleted in terms of Gazette Notification published on 20.10.2008.

(e) The examining authorities may follow the guidelines regarding

appointment of examiners given in Appendix-I."

13 The unamended clause as also the amended clause (amended on

20.10.2008) have been reproduced.

14 Admittedly, it is the amended Regulation 14 which is now applicable.

This Clause provides that the examination shall be organized on the basis of

grading or marking system to evaluate and certify candidates level of

knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a

minimum of 50% marks in theory as also in the practical separately are

mandatory for passing this examination as a whole. Clause (b) of Regulation

14(1) specifically provides for all Post Graduate Examiners (like the present

one). Minimum number of examiners shall be 4; 2 of the 4 examiners (50%)

shall be external examiners. They shall be invited from a recognized

university outside the State. 2 internal examiners may be appointed; one for

M.D./M.S. and another for Diploma. Clause (c) contains exceptional

circumstances which which examinations may be held with 3 (three)

examiners but 2 of the 3 examiners must still be external; the justification of

adopting this action shall be given to the Medical Council of India and only

then would the result be declared. Sub clause (e) of Regulation 14(1) states

that the Examianing Atuhrotiy may follow the guidelines regarding

appointment of examiners given in Appendix II.

15 Appendix II is Post Graduate Examination Guidelines on appointment

of Post Graduate Examiners. Clause 1 of Appendix II had been amended on

20.10.2008 and lays down the qualifications of these examiners as under:

"The above clause 1 is substituted in terms of Gazette Notification dated 20.10.2008 and the same is as under:-

„No person shall be appointed as an internal examiner in any subject unless he/she has three years experience as recognized PG teacher in the concerned subject. For external examiners, he/she should have minimum six years of experience as recognized PG teacher in the concerned subject.‟"

16 As per this criteria the internal examiner must have experience of 3

years as a recognized Post Graduate teacher in the concerned subject. For

the external examiner, he must have 6 years experience as a recognized Post

Graduate teacher in the concerned subject.

Sub clause (2) of Appendix II is relevant; it reads as under:

"There shall be at least four examiners in each subject at an examination out of which at least 50% (Fifty percent) shall be external examiners. The external examiner who fulfils the condition laid down in clause-1 above shall ordinarily be invited from another recognised university, f.rom outside the State: provided that in exceptional circumstances examinations may be held with 3 (three) examiners if two of them are external and Medical Council of India is intimated with the justification of such examination and the result shall be published in such a case with the approval or Medical Council of India."

17 As per Sub clause (2), there shall be 4 examiners for examination of

each subject. 2 examiners must be external, the external examiners must

have a qualification as laid down in Clause (1) (supra). They shall ordinarily

be invited from another recognized university outside the State. In

exceptional circumstances examinations may be held with 3 examiners of

whom 2 must be external and MCI has to be intimated with the justification

of this examination and the result shall be published only after the approval

of ther MCI.

18 It is a co-joint reading of these clauses read with the Appendix which

has to decide the case one way or the other. Based on this interpretation this

Court will decide whether these Regulations have been flouted in the instant

case or not.

19 In Clause (b) of Regulation 14(1) the word "shall" has been

emphasized at two points; in the post graduate Examination, out of 4

examiners 2 shall be external examiners. The second mandate is that the

said External Examiners shall be invited from another recognized university

outside the State. The use of the word "may" in Clause (b) is again relevant

in view of the criteria laid down for the internal examiners. Clause (b) states

that the internal examiners "may be appointed one for M.D./M.S. and one for

diploma". The use of word "may" for the purposes of internal examiners

and the use of word "shall" as the criteria for the external examiners makes

out a clear distinction qua their categorization. In the same context Clause

(c) is also relevant. Clause (c) provides that in an exceptional circumstance

the examination may be held with 3 examiners but nevertheless 2 out of 3

must be external. The relaxation on the external examiners is not made even

in Clause (c). The third examiner may alone be an internal examiner.

Clause (e) gives a discretion to the examining authority to follow the

guidelines regarding the appointment of examiners. The use of word "may"

in Clause (e) indicates the intent of the Regulation making Authority i.e. a

discretion of the examining authority to may or may not follow the

Guidelines contained in the said appendix.

20 The Guidelines are contained in Appendix II. The examination of

Clause (2) of the Appendix II shows that out of 4 examiners, 2 examiners

(50%) shall be external examiners; they have to fulfill the qualification

contained in Clause (1) which is qua their academic qualifications and

experience. This is not in dispute in the instant case. The use of the word

"ordinarily" carving out an exception giving a discretion to the respondent

University to invite an external examiner who although is regularly from

outside the State but in exceptional circumstances from within the State itself

is not quite correct. This is the interpretation which respondent no.1 seeks to

give to the word "ordinarily" as appearing in Sub Clause (2) of Appendix II.

The latter part of Clause (2) speaks of the exceptional circumstances where

the examination can be conducted with 3 examiners again of whom 2 of the

said examiners have to be member of the external examiners; there is no

relaxtation on the external examinaers.

21 Clause (2) of the Appendix II is a Guideline. The examining authority

may or may not follow this Guideline. Regulation 14 (1)(b) being the

substantive provision mandates that out of 4 examiners, 2 examiners have to

be external examiners; the mandate again being that the 2 external examiners

necessarily have to be invited from another recognized university from

outside the State. A relaxation can only be given for the internal examiners;

the internal examiners may be appointed, one for M.D./M.S. and one for

diploma. Sub clause (c) of Regulation 14(1) permits an examination with 3

examiners which again mandates 2 of the said examiners to be external.

22 Thus harmonious reading of Clause (b) of Regulation 14(1) read with

Clause (2) of Appendix II maintains the mandatory requirement of the 2

examiners being from a recognized university from outside the State.

Attempts to reconcile the said provisions lead only to one single

interpretation which is that the word "ordinarily" does not relax the condition

of the external examiners who mandatorily have to be from outside the State.

23 This interpretation is also favoured keeping in view the object of the

Regulations. The nature of the present course; i.e. a post

graduate/superspeciality medical course is of high academic standard where

a total transparency in the selection process of such a student has to be

strictly followed. The evaluation by an objective methodology of the papers

for such high standards of excellence to be maintained is the objective.

24 This Court is thus of the view that by appointing Dr.Madhur Yadav

(admittedly an examiner from Lady Harding Medical College within the

State of Delhi) Regulation 14 of the said Regulations has been flouted. This

not being a mere procedural irregularity but it goes to the root of the matter.

25 On the second aspect of the matter i.e. the efforts made by respondent

no.1 to seek substitution of Dr.P.K.Dandona, this Court had directed

respondent no.1 to file an additional affidavit. The stand of respondent no.1

on this count is already reproduced (supra). The contention of respondent

no.1 is that efforts were made telephonically to contact another external

examiner in place of Professor P.K.Dandona but not having found a

substitute it was necessary to appoint Dr.Madhur Yadav on 29.5.2017.

There is no document filed on record by respondent no.1 to substantiate this

statement. Annexure RA-1 has been filed alongwith additional affidavit.

This gives a list of 16 institutes which as per respondent no.1, faced such a

problem. Record shows that out of 16 institutes all of them got replacements

for external examiners except those listed at serial nos.2,15 and 16. The case

of institutes at serial nos.2,15 and 16 was accordingly put on a different

pedestal. The case of the petitioners is at serial no.15. In the case of institute

appearing at serial no.2 and 16 the regret of the said examiners has been

expressed in the month of May, 2016. Examination of respondent no.1 was

conducted on 05.6.2017. At such a short notice an external examiner could

not have been appointed; this submission of respondent no.1 on this score

may have force. The case of the petitioners is different. In their case the

external examiner has expressed his inability to conduct the examination on

14.3.2017 which was almost three months away from the date of the

examination which was scheduled for 05.6.2017. Effort made by

respondent no.1 on this count to get another external examiner in terms of

Regulation 14 appears not to be a genuine effort. The argument of learned

counsel for the petitioners that no effort had in fact been made by respondent

no.1 on this count has strength. On this count also respondent no.1 had no

justification.

26 This Court thus draws a conclusion that the Regulation 14 of the said

Regulations has been flouted. This not being a procedural irregularity and

going to the root of the matter what has now to be considered by this Court is

as to whether the entire examination (i) i.e. both the theory and the practical

examination has to be cancelled; (ii) whether it has to be qua the entire batch

of students who had appeared in the said examination or to be restricted to

the present petitioners; (iii) whether there can be a segregation of the theory

and practical examination; and the theory paper remaining intact the

practical paper can alone be evaluated.

27 On this score learned counsel for respondent points out that the

amendments of 20.12.2008 in Regulation 14 and the use of the word

"whole" which has now been substituted differently reflects the intent of the

rule making Authority. The examination cannot be segregated (i.e. the

theory and the practical) as the students have to pass the examination as a

whole to qualify for the M.D. course. Learned counsel for respondents

additionally points out that if the Court is of the view that the Regulation has

been flouted and the external examiner who had conducted practical

examination was not as per the Regulation, it would equally apply for the

theory paper as well; if he was not competent to adjudge the practical

examination the same examiner would not be competent to adjudge the

theory paper also and the entire examination has to be cancelled and the

whole re-examination has to be taken by the petitioners.

28 Learned counsels for the parties, both concur and agree that the status

of the other candidates who have already qualified in this course should not

be disturbed. This Court maintains that status quo.

29 This Court also notes and endorses the argument of the respondents

which is to the effect that if the Regulation is found to be flouted and

Dr.Madhur Yadav was not an external examiner within the meaning of

Regulation 14 for the purposes of the practical examination; he could not

qualify as an external examiner for the purposes of the theory paper as well.

30 On this count this Court approves the suggestion given by learned

senior counsel for the petitioners which is that if the re-examination of the

practical/clinical and oral course is ordered and a fresh set of examiners is

appointed in terms of Regulation 14; for the purposes of the theory paper the

answer sheets already submitted by the aforenoted six petitioners be re-

evaluated by the same set of examiners. Submission being that the M.D.

course/superspeciality course is an intense course for which a deep-rooted

and intense study has to be done by the students which may not be feasible

again as all the petitioners are working doctors. Submission being that the

theory papers already answered by the petitioners may be re-evaluated along

with the permission to appear afresh in the practical/clinical and oral

examination. This Court approves this suggestion.

31 Accordingly, this Court in its discretion directs respondent no.1 along

with respondent no.3 to conduct a fresh examination in the practical/clinical

and oral course for the aforenoted six petitioners. For the theory paper

already answered by the petitioners, re-evaluation (by the same set of

examiners who will conduct the practical/clinical and oral examination) will

be carried out. This will answer the objection of the respondent that the

examination has to be conducted as a whole i.e. theory and the practical

together (in conformity with the clarification in terms of the minutes of the

meeting dated 30.12.2016 of the MCI). The said examination of the

petitioners be conducted within an outer limit of three months from today.

Necessary examiners (both external and internal) shall be appointed as per

the statutory regulations and this exercise shall be completed by the

respondent university in consultation and in conformity with respondent

no.3. The result will also be announced within that period.

32 Petition allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017