Madras High Court
Dr.S.Karthika vs National Medical Commission on 28 March, 2022
W.A.No.723 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.03.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, Chief Justice
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
---
W.A.No.723 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.5025 of 2022
---
Dr.S.Karthika .. Appellant
Vs.
1. National Medical Commission
Rep. by its Joint Secretary/Assistant Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwaraka, Phase-I,
New Delhi-110 077.
2. The Pondicherry University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Administrative Building, R.V.Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.
3. The Controller of Examinations,
Pondicherry University, R.V.Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.
4. Sri Venkateshwara Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre,
Rep. by its Chairman B.Ramachandran,
No.13-A, Pondy Villupuram Main Road,
Ariyur, Puducherry-605 102. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22909 of 2021
on the file of this Court.
For appellant : Mr.K.Sakthivel
For respondent: M/s.Shubharanjani Ananth for R-1
Mr.M.Ravi for RR-2 & 3
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2021,
whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking condonation of shortage of
attendance to appear in the final year P.G. examination commencing from
15.07.2020 onwards. The writ petition therein was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that minimum of 80%
attendance was required of imparting training, the appellant had obtained 71%
of the attendance. Thus, the first Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to
the respondents to consider the representation of the writ appellant for
condonation of the shortage of attendance. However, when the representation
was rejected, another Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Petition was thereupon
Page No.2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
dismissed by learned Single Judge referring to Regulation 13 of the Post-
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the provisions of the
Pondicherry University Act, submitted that it is governed by the Post-Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2000. It provides minimum standards and
required attendance for it. The appellant prayed for condonation of shortage of
attendance. It was submitted that it is not the attendance, of course, but the
strategic training was given under Regulation 13.2 of the Regulations, 2000 and
therefore, the shortage of attendance could have been condoned. This was not
examined by the learned Single Judge in terms of the provisions and for that
reason, writ petition was dismissed for the reasons recorded by the learned
Single Judge. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that a Division Bench of
this Court addressed the same issue in the case of E.Pradeep Prem Kumar Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary, Chennai and others, reported
in CDJ 2011 MHC 967. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge should
have allowed the petition with condonation of the shortage of attendance.
5. It is more so, when the appellant had appeared for the written
examination pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and otherwise to
Page No.3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
cover the shortage of attendance, she took training on holidays. The prayer is
accordingly made to consider the issue aforesaid in the background given above
and thereby, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the Writ
Appeal be allowed.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
7. The appellant has referred to the salient features of the Regulations,
2000, published by the Pondicherry University. Regulation 13 pertains to training
programme and Regulation 13.2 is relevant to the issue, which is extracted as
under:
"Regulation 13: Training Programme:
.... ...
13.2. All the candidates joining the Post
Graduate training programme shall work as 'Full Time
Residents' during the period of training and shall
attend not less than 80% (Eighty percent) of the
imparted training during Academic Term of 6 months,
including assignments, assessed full time
responsibilities and participation in all facets of the
educational process."
Page No.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
8. As per the Regulation aforesaid, all candidates joining the Post-
Graduate training programme, were to work as "Full Time Residents" during the
period of training and to attend not less than 80% of the imparted training
during academic term of 6 months, including the assignments, assessed full time
responsibilities and participation in all facets of the educational process. This
being the rule position, the candidate pursuing the post-graduate education,
was under the obligation to attend the post-graduate training programme, as full
time residents and attend not less than 80% of the imparted training during
academic term of six months.
9. It is not in dispute, rather, the case of the appellant was that she is
short of 80% attendance and thus, only she prayed for condonation, so as to
take the final examination of post-graduate, without having attendance to the
extent it is prescribed under the Regulations, 2000, quoted above.
10. The Regulation, 2000, aforesaid is amended by the Regulations of
2008, where several provisions have been addressed and the Regulations of
2008 are binding. This being so, one is required to take the training programme
in the manner required finally by the Pondicherry University. It is not a case
Page No.5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
where the minimum requirement given under the Regulations, has been altered
to go below the minimum, so as to ignore the Regulations of the Pondicherry
University, rather, the Regulations, 2008, are otherwise referred to by the
Pondicherry University as the salient feature of the Regulations. This was
required to be complied by each candidate. Regulation 13.2 of the Regulations,
2008 is also quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"Regulation 13: Training Programme:
.... ...
13.2. All candidates joining the Post Graduate
training programme shall work as 'Full Time Residents'
during the period of training and shall attend not less
than 80% (Eighty percent) of the imparted training
during each academic year including assignments,
assessed full time responsibilities and participation in
all facets of the educational process."
11. The learned counsel for the writ appellant failed to show any provision
that provides to make out the attendance before the date of final examination,
i.e., to fill up the shortage of attendance, by taking programme on holidays.
There is no Regulation in that regard. The Medical College or the University
cannot permit a candidate to fill the gap in her own suitable manner, whereas,
imparted training is programmed, looking to the nature of the course. It is not
Page No.6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
M.B.B.S., but it is a post-graduate course which requires vigorous training and
studies, because, a candidate undertaking the course of post-graduation would
be extending the medical advise in a specialised field and, therefore, the only
requirement unlike M.B.B.S. course, in the post-graduate, is to be resident for
training. Therefore, more attention was required to be given to take the training
to the minimum extent required. The appellant herein failed to take training with
minimum required percentage to become eligible to appear for the examination.
It cannot be endorsed in the name of sympathy only for the reason that this
Court passed interim order to allow the appellant to participate in the
examination. Permission to write the examination does not mean the finality of
the interim order. It always remains subject to the final outcome of the Writ
Petition and the Writ appellant has to resolve the issue and finding that the
appellant failed to complete the training in the manner required, i.e. to the
extent of percentage required to be attended, the Court did not find any ground
to accept the prayer and accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
12. We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, and otherwise, she is not debarred to appear for the final
examination, rather with the completion of the required training programme to
the extent of the attendance required.
Page No.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
13. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
(M.N.B., C J) (D.B.C.J)
28.03.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
cs/grs
To
1. National Medical Commission
Rep. by its Joint Secretary/Assistant Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwaraka, Phase-I,
New Delhi-110 077.
2. The Pondicherry University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Administrative Building, R.V.Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.
3. The Controller of Examinations,
Pondicherry University, R.V.Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014.
Page No.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.723 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
cs
W.A.No.723 of 2022
28.03.2022
Page No.9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
