Madras High Court
The Director vs N.Ilaiyabharathi on 29 June, 2021
W.A.No.633 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.633 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.5145 of 2019
The Director,
Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital,
Kalitheerthalkuam, Madagadipet,
Pondicherry. .. Appellant
Vs
1.N.Ilaiyabharathi
2.The Secretary
Medical Council of India
Pocket 14, Sector - 8,
Dwaraka, New Delhi.
3.The Registrar,
Pondicheery University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 03.01.2019 made in W.P.No.17822 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For Respondents : Mr.R.N.Amarnath for R1
M/s.Shubharanjani Ananthi for R2
No appearance for R3
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.633 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of
the learned Single Judge, who while asking the first
respondent/student to undergo 29 days CRRI training, held that the
remaining period which he though attended but assessed as not good
will have to be taken for the purpose of attendance and consequently
the performance.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily
contended that the role of the Court is very limited and, therefore, the
power of judicial review ought not to have been exercised. There is no
material that has been proved against the appellant. The first
respondent/student completed the course long time back and,
thereafter continued the internship. He was utilizing the facilities in the
interregnum and that is the reason why the demand was raised earlier
which was withdrawn subsequently. Thus, the appeal will have to be
allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.633 of 2019
3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that the assessment has been made contrary to Regulation 6, which
speaks of Assessment of Internship. No assessment has been done by
the unit heads. It was done subsequently by others who were not
available to assess the performance of the first respondent/student.
The demand was raised for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- which was
withdrawn only after the orders of this Court in W.P.No.6033 of 2017.
In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge does
not warrant interference.
4. We are quite conscious of the fact that the power of judicial
review is rather limited. However, considering the facts of the case, we
do not wish to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Regulation 6 speaks of assessment of internship and the same is
extracted hereunder:-
"(6) Assessment of Internship: i) The intern shall
maintain a record of work which is to be verified
and certified by the medical officer under who he
works. Apart from scrutiny of the record of work,
assessment and evaluation of training shall be
undertaken by an objective approach using
situation tests in knowledge, skills and attitude
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.633 of 2019
during and at the end of the training. Based on the
record of work and date of evaluation, the
Dean/Principal shall issue certificate of satisfactory
completion of training, following which the
University shall award the MBBS degree or declare
him eligible for it."
5. The certification has been done by the medical officer under
whom a student works. Learned counsel for the first respondent has
demonstrated that the unit chief of various departments were different
and the assessments have been made by others. In some case, the
name of the unit chief was not recorded. The aforesaid facts are not
denied or disputed. It is also not in dispute that there was a dispute
between the appellant and the first respondent/writ petitioner with
respect to the payment demanded for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/-. This
led to the first respondent to file a writ petition W.P.No.6033 of 2017.
Only thereafter, orders have been passed and a decision was taken by
the appellants to give up the said amount.
6. In the light of the above, we do not wish to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge particularly, when the period of 29
days is directed to be completed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.633 of 2019
7. In such view of the matter, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
29.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Secretary
Medical Council of India
Pocket 14, Sector - 8,
Dwaraka, New Delhi.
2.The Registrar,
Pondicheery University,
R.Venkatraman Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.633 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.633 of 2019
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
