Jijo A. Thomas vs The Director Of Medical Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 8492 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          JIJO A. THOMAS, AGED 24 YEARS
          S/O. ANIL THOMAS, R/O JIAN VILLA,
          MALLAPPALLY WEST P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA,
          KERALA - 689 585.

          BY ADVS.
          K.DHRUV KUMAR
          SHAKTHI PRAKASH
          HARIKRISHNAN M.S.
          PRATHEEK VISWANATHAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
          DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
          MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          KERALA, PIN- 695 011.

    2     THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (G)
          DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
          MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          KERALA, PIN- 695 011.

    3     PUSHPAGIRI COLLEGE OF ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCES
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL
          COLLEGE HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.

          BY ADVS.
          KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
          THOMAS GEORGE
          SMT RESMI THOMAS -GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 16863/22
                                    2



                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that even though he completed his

internship for a period which is more than what was prescribed,

namely 1½ years, he has been denied his Certificate of Diploma

in Dialysis Technology by respondents, citing a hypertechnical

reason that he did not complete the said internship after he had

passed the written examination or simultaneously thereto.

2. Sri.Dhruv Kumar K. - learned counsel for the

petitioner, explained that his client had joined the internship and

completed it, during which he had also appeared for the written

examinations. He conceded that his client cleared the written

examination only through supplementary chance, but argued that

this would be of no consequence in the internship per se, because

Ext.P1 Prospectus only stipulate that it be done for a period of

one year in single shift, though he was asked to do it for

additional six months in double and triple shifts. He predicated

that, therefore, his client has been discriminated and victimised

for no fault of his; and thus prayed that this Writ Petition be WPC 16863/22

allowed.

3. In response, Smt.Resmi Thomas - learned Government

Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's certificate has been held

up only because he did not clear the examinations after his

internship had been completed. She argued that, going by the

applicable Regulations, an internship is possible only after the

examination is cleared; but that some students are allowed to do

so on an earlier date, anticipating pass in the written

examinations. She submitted that since the petitioner did not do

so, the internship completed by him earlier has now become

unworthy and cannot be included in the certificate, since its

format shows the date of such being one either simultaneously or

after the successful completion of the written examinations. She

thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

4. When I heard the learned Government Pleader on the

afore lines, I asked her specifically as to which Regulation she

was referring to, but she was unable to specify, arguing that this

is the only manner in which Ext.P1 can be interpreted. She added

that, in the format of the certificate also there is a problem WPC 16863/22

because, unless the petitioner had cleared the examination next to

the internship, it cannot be included therein.

5. I must say that I cannot find favour with the afore

submissions of the learned Government Pleader because, unless

there is a specific Regulation or Statutory inhibition against grant

of credit to an internship for an examination which was cleared

in the supplementary chance, same cannot be denied to the

petitioner since, admittedly, he had completed his internship

without default. Going by Ext.P1 Prospectus, contrary to what has

been stated by the learned Government Pleader, a student is only

required to complete it for a period of one year in single shifts;

while the petitioner maintains that he has completed another six

months in double and triple shifts.

6. Obviously, therefore, if the afore seen facts are true,

the petitioner cannot be burdened with any further requirement

to do internship and must be granted his Certificate of Diploma

in terms of Ext.P1 Prospectus without any further delay.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the

competent among respondents to immediately issue the Certificate WPC 16863/22

of Diploma in Dialysis Technology to the petitioner, which shall

be done not later than one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment; however, clarifying that this shall be done

after verifying and confirming that he had completed the

necessary period of internship as is required under the prospectus

- be that simultaneous with the clearing of written examinations,

or prior to it.

Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, Ext.P4

will also be adverted to, that records the period during which the

petitioner had done his internship.

Sd/-

RR                                        DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE
 WPC 16863/22


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16863/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE 2018
                    ADMISSION TO THE COURSE 'DIPLOMA IN
                    DIALYSIS TECHNOLOGY'.
Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S MARK LIST
                    DATED 16.04.2021.
Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE COMPLETION
                    CERTIFICATE.
Exhibit P4          TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNSHIP COMPLETION
                    CERTIFICATE.
Exhibit P5          TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.03.2022
                    RECEIVED FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD
                    RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
Exhibit P6          TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE EMAIL
                    CONVERSATION DATED 25.03.2022 BETWEEN
                    THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.