Bairi Shashank Goud vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1213 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                       AND
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

                   Writ Appeal No.5 of 2022

JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy):

1. Aggrieved by the common order dated 29.11.2021 in

batch of Writ Petition Nos.25285, 27252, 27296, 28631,

28316 and 26839 of 2021, the writ petitioner in WP

No.27252 of 2021 has filed this Writ Appeal under Clause-

15 of the Letter Patent Appeal.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the

present Writ Appeal are as under:

3. i) The petitioners in all the above writ petitions have

joined in MBBS course in the academic year 2019-20 and

their classes commenced in September, 2019. According

to the petitioners, the Medical Council of India (for short

'MCI') has introduced Competency Based Undergraduate

Curriculum for Competency Based Assessment (for short

'CBA') prescribed by the Regulations of Graduate Medical

Education 1997, as amended by the Regulations of

Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

short 'Regulations 2019') applicable from the academic

year 2019-20. The common grievance of the petitioners is

that MBBS first year examinations conducted by the 4th

respondent-Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health

Sciences, Warangal (for short 'University') in March 2021

(Regular) and July 2021 (Supplementary) are contrary to

the new curriculum styled as 'CBA' prescribed by the MCI

Regulations 2019, wherein and whereby wrong question

paper was set by the University violating the Statutory,

Mandatory Regulations 2019 and also violating Module 3

Assessment Module for Undergraduate Medical Education

2019 prescribed by the MCI, which resulted in gross

injustice to the writ petitioner.

ii) The Regulations 2019 came into force with effect from

06.11.2019 and added as Part-II of the Regulations on

Graduate Medical Education 1997 and they shall be the

governing Regulations with respect to the batches admitted

in MBBS courses for the academic year 2019-20 onwards.

The new curriculum styled as CBA was specifically

introduced by the MCI with a laudable object to enable the

medical students to perform well as a physician of first

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

contact of the community. The CBA has introduced

"Structured Formative Assessment", "Periodic Internal

Assessment" and at the end "Summative Assessment".

These three Assessments are to be conducted for

evaluating the understanding of students and for relying

upon the learners' abilities and core competencies,

acquired during respective phases as determined by the

new curriculum. The Summative Assessment is to be

conducted by the University at the end of the academic

year, wherein the overall performance of student is

assessed, to check as to how much the student has learnt

in that phase.

iii) Regulation 11.2.1 deals with University Examinations

(Summative Assessment). The University has to set the

question papers as mandated by Regulation 11.2.2, which

mandates as under:

a. Long Answer Questions (LAQ) b. Short Answer Questions (SAQ) c. Objective Type / Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) d. 20% marks shall be accorded to MCQs

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

e. Students must secure 40% in each paper and 50% in aggregate, wherever there are two papers for passing in the summative exam.

Regulation 11.2.9 (l) reads as under:

"The grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a learner for clearing the examination as a whole but not for clearing a subject resulting in exemption".

iv) Annexure-2 of Module-3 of the Assessment Module

for Undergraduate Medical Education 2019 prescribes the

setting of question papers for the first phase of MBBS in

the following manner:

a. Long essay questions b. Short notes c. Reasoning questions d. Short notes applied aspects e. Short notes Attitude, Ethics and Communication (AETOCOM) f. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

The University has violated the mandatory provisions

applicable for designing the question papers. As per the

new Regulations, MCQs shall be accorded a weightage of

not more than 20% of the total theory marks, but the

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

University has violated this cardinal principle. Accordingly

prayed to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos.4 and

5 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional.

v) The writ petition is also filed challenging the inaction

of the University in not exercising its discretion to grant

5 grace marks to the writ petitioner under Regulation

11.2.9 (l) of Regulations of Graduate Medical Education

(Amendment) Act, 2019, which are the only required marks

for qualifying the writ petitioner in the Summative

Examinations of July 2021.

vi) It is also further prayed that pending disposal of the

main Writ Petition, this Court may direct the respondents

1 to 4 to conduct fresh supplementary examinations to the

writ petitioner in accordance with the CBA curriculum

prescribed by the 2019 Statutory Regulations and Module

3 of Assessment Module for Undergraduate Medical

Education 2019 by announcing the Examination Schedule

in advance and also to permit the writ petitioner to

participate in Para-Clinical Phase-II - Second Professional

Course to be conducted by the 5th respondent college.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

4. i) The learned single Judge has dismissed this writ

petition along with WP Nos.25285, 27296, 28631, 28316

and 26839 of 2021, through the common order dated

29.11.2021 holding that the academic issues are not

within the realm of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and unless there is a patent illegality

committed by Universities /Colleges, this Court ordinarily

would not interfere in academic issues. The pattern of

question papers and the manner in which the question

papers have to be prepared is not within the domain of the

Constitutional Courts. The Assessment Module is more in

the nature of guidelines and suggestions. Neither in the

main examinations nor in the supplementary

examinations, the writ petitioner and other students have

raised any objection. The petitioners have approached the

Court after supplementary examinations, which show that

it is an after-thought after they failed the supplementary

examinations.

ii) With regard to relief of grant of 5 grace marks, the

learned single Judge has held that courts would rarely

interfere with the academic matters and the writ petitioner

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

is not entitled for Writ of Mandamus against the University.

Finally held that the expert bodies of Universities are the

best persons to set the pattern of question papers. Even if

there is any deviation in setting the question paper, the

deviation is minor and cannot be said to have impacted

performance of the students and accordingly, dismissed

the writ petitions.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated

29.11.2021, the petitioner in WP No.27252 of 2021 has

filed this Writ Appeal.

6. Heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel

for the appellant/petitioner, Sri Namavarapu Rajeswar

Rao, leaned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing

for Union of India, Sri J. Ramachandra Rao, learned

Additional Advocate General appearing for the learned

Government Pleader for Medical and Health, Sri A.

Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 4th

respondent-University and Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga

Poojitha, learned Standing Counsel for MCI. Perused the

material available on record.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

7. i) The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner

submitted that the 4th respondent-University has failed to

follow the Mandatory Regulations 2019. The setting of

question papers is in violation of Regulation 11.2.2. of

Regulations 2019. Objective Type Questions/Multiple

Choice Questions (MCQs) were not included with a

weightage of not more than 20% of theory marks and that

the University has no option except to follow the

Regulations 2019 in setting the question papers and relied

on Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.1.

ii) The learned counsel for the appellant further argued

that though the learned single Judge has not disputed the

principles laid in the above decision, erroneously

misdirected by referring to a non-statutory module of MCI.

The crux of the issue that fell for consideration is whether

setting of question paper is in accordance with Regulation

11.22.2 for both regular and supplementary examinations

held in March and July 2021 respectively. The University

also failed to consider the request of the petitioner to award

(1999) 7 SCC 120

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

5-grace marks so that he would clear the first year

examinations as a whole, finally requested for a direction to

the University to conduct special supplementary

examination so that the appellant may join in the main

batch for the progression to the MBBS second year on

successful completion of first year professional course.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General

submitted that the MBBS first year regular examinations

were conducted in March 2021 and supplementary

examinations were held in July 2021. Neither during

regular examinations nor supplementary examinations any

objection had been raised by the petitioner; only after

failing in the supplementary examinations, the petitioner

conveniently approached this Court without any legal

basis. It is not as if the petitioner was given an impression

at the time of admissions itself that the MCQs would be

compulsorily included in the question paper, there cannot

be such grievance, inasmuch as the students who have

passed previously did not have any MCQs at all and the

examination process which was followed for the past

several years was only followed during the year 2021.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

Further submitted that the instructions in the Regulation

11.2.2. and in Module 3 Assessment for setting the

question paper are more in the nature of advisory and

guidelines and that the Summative Assessment is in the

exclusive domain of the Universities to which the medical

colleges are affiliated and merely because MCQs are not

included in the question papers, the petitioner cannot

claim that he was subjected to prejudice.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

University has adopted the arguments of the learned

Additional Advocate General.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

MCI adopting the arguments of learned Additional

Advocate General submitted that the petitioner did not

challenge the holding of examinations with the pattern of

old question papers either before the regular examinations

or before the supplementary examinations and having

failed in both the examinations filed this writ petition.

Relying upon the orders of a single Judge of A.P. High

Court in IA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.13840 of 2021, she

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

urged that Regulation 7.6 of Regulations 2019 is

abundantly clear that only those candidates who pass in

the supplementary examinations will join in the main

batch for progression and the failed candidates shall take

first year examination in the subsequent year. Hence, the

question of conducting special supplementary examination

for the students who failed in the supplementary

examinations or permitting them to join in the main batch

for progression to second year MBBS does not arise.

11. After hearing both sides when the matter was

reserved for orders, the learned counsel for appellant has

submitted additional affidavit of the appellant along with

certain additional material under notice to other side. In

the additional affidavit, the appellant has reiterated his

stand in the writ petition and further alleged that the 4th

respondent-University is playing with their lives in the

forthcoming main examinations and a new question paper

format in deviation to the earlier question paper was

prepared, including 20 marks for LAQs (Long Answer

Questions), 40 marks for SAQs (Short Answer Questions),

30 marks for VSAQs (Very Short Answer Questions) and 10

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

marks for MCQs (Multiple Choice Questions). This

recommendation of the Chairman of Board of Studies of

the University is also not in compliance with the Regulation

No.11.2.2 of the National Medical Commission Regulations

and it is illegal. The Controller of Examinations of the

University initially on 03.02.2022 directed the

recommendation of the Board of Studies be implemented

by the University as well as affiliated colleges. But, again

another letter dated 16.02.2022 was addressed,

withholding such recommendation advising to conduct

examination with the old pattern of question paper as

conducted by them previously. Further averred that the

States of Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh

are following the National Medical Council Regulation

No.11.2.2 by allotting 20 marks for MCQs in their question

paper. The appellant also filed the copies of question

papers of Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh

and the correspondence dated 03.11.2021 of the Chairman

of Board of Studies of the University for inclusion of MCQs

only for 10 marks as additional material.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

12. Considering the rival contentions and the material

available on record the points that arise for our

consideration are as follows:

      i)     Whether        the     Regulations       2019      are
             mandatory in nature.              If so, whether

setting of the question papers with old pattern without including Objective Type Questions [i.e., Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)] is bad causing prejudice to the petitioner.

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a Writ of Mandamus directing the University to exercise its discretion in awarding 5 grace marks as per the Regulation 11.2.9

(l) of Regulations 2019.

iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of conducting of special supplementary examinations with the new pattern of question papers and whether he may be permitted to join in the main batch for progression to the second year MBBS.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

13. The MCI in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for

short 'IMC Act') and in supersession of the Regulations on

Graduate Medical Education 1997 has framed the new

Regulations called as "Regulations on Graduate Medical

Education (Amendment), 2019". They came into force with

effect from 04.11.2019. These provisions shall be the

governing regulations with respect to batches admitted in

MBBS course from the academic year 2019-20 onwards.

Whereas, the Regulations of Graduate Medical Education

1997 shall be the governing Regulations with respect to the

batches admitted in MBBS course until the academic year

2018-19.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant while relying on

Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (1st supra) argued that the

Universities have to be guided by standards prescribed by

the MCI and must establish their progress accordingly.

The scheme of IMC Act does not give any option to the

Universities whether to follow the standards laid down by

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

the MCI or not. By this time, the law is settled that under

the IMC Act, the MCI has been set up as an Expert Body to

control the minimum standards of medical education. The

Universities must necessarily be guided by standards

prescribed under Section 20 (1) if their degrees/diplomas

are to be recognized by the MCI.

15. Be it stated that the MCI in super-session of earlier

Regulations for the MBBS course from the academic year

2019-20 has introduced Regulations 2019. Chapter VI of

the said Regulations deal with Assessment. Regulation

11.1 deals with eligibility to appear for professional

examinations. Regulation 11.2 deals with university

examinations. Regulations 11.2.2 as extracted below is

relevant for consideration in this case:

Regulation 11.2.2:

"Nature of questions will include different type such as structured essays (Long Answer Questions - LAQ), Short Answer Questions (SAQ) and objective type questions (e.g. Multiple Choice Questions - MCQ). Marks for each part should be indicated separately. MCQ shall be accorded a weightage of not more than 20% of the total theory marks. In subjects that have two papers, the learner must secure at least 40% marks in each of the papers with minimum 50% of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass."

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

16. The MCI has released Assessment Module for

Undergraduate Medical Education Training Programme

2019 in the form of guidelines for assessment in the

Competency Based Undergraduate Curriculum. In order to

find out whether the relevant Regulation 11.2.2 and the

Assessment Module are mandatory or not, it would be

relevant to refer to some features of the module.

(i) In the forewords of Dr. Vinod K. Paul, Chairman,

and Dr. R.K. Vats, Secretary General of MCI, Board of

Governors in Super - Session of MCI, to the Assessment

Module, it is mentioned as follows:

            "The    booklet   provides   clarity and
         guidelines that will be useful in the
         development      and     implementation   of
         assessment in the competency based
         environment.       There is an increased
         emphasis on assessment of outcomes
         through alignment with objectives.      Also

provided are ideas and strategies for meaningful formative and summative assessment. Summative assessment is the domain of the Universities, however, this booklet provides some Principles that Universities can adopt why aligning the examinations to the curriculum that the learners will undergo".

"This booklet provides a suggested pattern for Competency Based Assessment for the MBBS program commencing 2019.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

Summative assessment is the domain of the Universities to whom Medical colleges are affiliated. Some changes will be required in the way that learners are tested to meet the requirements in the Competency based Curriculum". (emphasis supplied)

(ii) Regarding designing of question paper, the CBA

guidelines suggests as under:

"Theory question paper (Knowledge part)- For Universities and colleges:

Universities should instruct paper setters to follow guidelines for paper setting as given below:

"1. Follow MCI competencies for paper setting in the subject.

2. Designing of question paper should take into consideration all levels of knowledge domain e.g. Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive domain. Use appropriate verbs for the questions at each level to assess higher levels of learning. An example is given below in the Table. Use combination of various types of questions e.g. structured essays (Long Answer Questions - LAQ), Short Answers Questions (SAQ) and objective type questions (e.g. Multiple Choice Questions - MCQ) Marks for each part should be indicated separately. MCQs if used, should not have more than 20% weightage ... ... ..." (emphasis supplied)

17. A conjoint reading of Regulation 11.2.2 of 2019

Regulation along with the forewords of the Chairman and

the Secretary General of MCI, Board of Governors in

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

supersession of MCI to the Assessment Module for

Undergraduate Medical Education 2019 and para 8 (b) of

the said Module dealing with summative assessment

logistics for Universities as extracted above would only

show that this particular Regulation is in the nature of

advisory/guideline/suggestion. The Assessment Module is

issued for curriculum implementation to help the

readers/teachers to understand the role and changes in

assessment as per new curriculum, differences between

the traditional assessment and CBA, to understand the

tools for CBA and to plan, develop and implement CBA in

the colleges and universities.

18. As per para-4 of Module 3 Assessment, while an

obvious purpose of assessment in competency based

curriculum is to help the teachers decide if the students

have acquired the desired competencies an equal purpose

is to help the students acquire and improve their

competencies. Quality assurance also requires quality

assessment. In para-6, it is mentioned that the Summative

Assessment e.g., university examinations at the end of

professionals are used for pass or fail decision. The

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

purpose of such assessments is to sample the learning and

ensure quality. In this case, there is no dispute as far as

Formative and Internal Assessment and the only dispute is

with reference to Summative Assessment which is the

exclusive domain of Universities.

19. It is not the case of the petitioner that the marks

distribution is not as proposed by Graduate Medical

Examination Regulation (GMER) 2019 for various subjects

as mentioned in the Table-II in the university

examinations. In the Module, it was advised that the

university should instruct the paper setters to follow the

guidelines for paper setting, one such guideline is MCQs

"if used" should not have more than 20% weightage.

Accordingly, some examples of theory questions including

MCQs were also given in the Annexure-2.

20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

Regulation 11.2.2 of Regulation 2019, relevant paras of

Module 3 of Assessment Module, the nature and purpose

of summative assessment, which is the domain of the

university. In our considered opinion, the Assessment

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

Module does not admit of any other interpretation so as to

hold that it is mandatory in nature. It is also not in dispute

that the University has distributed the marks as per the

Assessment Module. Therefore, even if the MCQs are not

included for not more than 20 marks in the question

papers, the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced with

the same, as it is not his case that the questions were out

of syllabus or the marks were not properly distributed as

per Regulations 2019 and the Assessment Module 3.

21. It is apt to note that neither in the regular

examinations nor in the supplementary/instant

examinations held in March 2021 and July 2021

respectively, the petitioner has raised any such objection

for not including MCQs and only approached the Court

after failing in the supplementary examinations. The whole

controversy and crux of the issue in this case is only about

non-inclusion of MCQs for 20 marks in question paper

setting, which is part of summative assessment and within

the domain of universities.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

22. It is true that the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti

Srivastava's case (1st supra) held that the universities are

necessarily guided by the standards prescribed under

Section 20 (1) of MCI Act, if their degrees or diplomas are

to be recognized under the MCI Act and the scheme of MCI

Act does not give an option to the universities to follow or

not to follow the standards laid down by Indian Medical

Council. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the

University is following the standards laid down by MCI and

it is also not the case of appellant at any time. His only

grievance is that as per Regulation 11.2.2, MCQs are not

included in the question papers in March (regular) and

July (supplementary) examinations held in 2021. As stated

above, as per 2019 Regulations, marks distributed to all

the subjects, while setting question papers, all types of

questions except MCQs are included. May be for the simple

reason that in Module 3 of assessment it is mentioned as

MCQ "if used" not more than 20 marks and it is part of

summative assessment they are not included. Therefore,

the ratio laid in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (1st supra) is

not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Even

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

otherwise, the non-inclusion of MCQs in the question

paper is only a minor deviation and it is in accordance with

the Assessment Module 3 for implementation of Medical

Education Programme 2019. Therefore, by no stretch of

imagination it can be said that the petitioner is prejudiced

by non-inclusion of MCQs in the question paper and the

contention raised by the petitioner is legally unsustainable.

23. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

as per Regulation 11.2.9 (l), the university has got

discretion to award the grace marks up to a maximum of 5

marks to a learner for clearing the examination as a whole,

but in spite of repeated requests failed to exercise such

discretion.

24. In this case, it is stated that the learned single Judge

while following on the principles laid in Maharashtra State

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v.

Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth2 and in Tariqu Islam v

Aligarh Muslim University3 has rightly arrived at a

conclusion that the academic issues are not within the

(1984) 2 SCC 27

(2001) 8 SCC 546

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

realm of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and unless there is a patent illegality

committed by the Universities/Colleges, the Constitutional

Courts would not interfere in the academic issues. Thus,

pattern of question papers and the manner in which the

question papers have to be prepared is not within the

domain of the Constitutional Courts.

25. The learned single Judge held that in academic

issues, courts do not venture to interfere unless there is

gross illegality and this Court cannot direct the university

to grant grace marks as it is discretionary power of the

university to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances.

We do not find any infirmities in the findings recorded by

the learned single Judge. In the facts and circumstances

of the case, since the appellant failed to convince the Court

about gross illegality in evaluation of answer sheets or

other circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for Writ

of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent-University to

award 5 grace marks, as per Regulation 11.2.9 (1) of

Regulations 2019.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

26. Thus, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are accordingly answered

holding that the Regulations 2019 are mandatory in

nature, but Regulation 11.2.2 read with Assessment

Module as far as inclusion of MCQs is advisory and

suggestive, since it is forming part of Summative

Assessment which is the exclusive domain of universities.

Therefore, we do not find any irregularity in the question

papers setting either for the regular or for supplementary

examinations held in the month of March and July 2021

for the first year MBBS. However, the University may

consider to include MCQs in setting the question papers as

suggested in the Assessment Module and Regulations of

2019 in future, so as to bring uniformity in the nature and

pattern of the questions throughout the country as desired

by MCI.

Point No.(iii):

27. Part-II of amended Regulations shall apply to the

medical students of 2019-20 batch onwards. The

petitioner herein has appeared for regular and

supplementary examinations held in March and July, 2021

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

and failed in those two examinations, thereafter filed the

writ petition with a prayer to direct the 4th respondent-

University to conduct special supplementary examination

with new pattern of question papers including 20 marks for

MCQs and also pending such examinations to permit him

to join in the main batch for progression of second year

MBBS.

28. The relevant Regulations covered by Chapter-IV -

Phase-wise Training and Time Distribution for Professional

Development. Regulation 7.6 is germane for our

consideration:

"7.6 Universities shall organize admission timing and admission process in such a way that teaching in the first professional year commences with induction through the Foundation Course by the 1st of August of each year.

(i) Supplementary examinations shall not be conducted later than 90 days from the date of declaration of the results of the main examination, so that the learners who pass can join the main batch for progression and the remainder would appear for the examination in the subsequent year.

(ii) A learner shall not be entitled to graduate later than ten (10) years of her/his joining the first MBBS course."

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

29. The above Regulation manifests that the induction

course to the students of first professional year course

commences by the first of August each year. The

supplementary examinations shall not be conducted later

than the 90 days from the date of declaration of results of

main examinations. This stipulation of 90 days appears to

be incorporated with an avowed object of enabling the

learners who passed in the supplementary examinations to

join the main batch for progression to the second year and

the students who could not pass the supplementary

examinations would have to appear for the examinations in

the subsequent year.

30. On a careful examination of Regulation 2019, the

Regulation No.7.6 would disclose that the candidates, who

failed in main examinations can make an attempt in the

supplementary examinations which shall be conducted

within 90 days from the date of declaration of results of the

regular examinations and if such candidate passes in the

supplementary examinations, he/she can join the main

batch for progression to the second year. But, a failed

candidate would have to appear for the examinations in the

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

subsequent year. Therefore, the Regulations 2019 makes it

clear that a student who failed in the supplementary

examinations cannot be admitted into the second year

MBBS along with the main batch. The MCI with an

intention to save the academic year for the students who

have passed in the supplementary examinations must have

stipulated that the supplementary examinations shall be

conducted within 90 days from the date of declaration of

results of the main examination so that such a candidate

who passed the said examination can join the main batch

for progression to the MBBS second year.

31. In such facts and circumstances and in view of

mandatory nature of Regulations 2019, no such direction

can be issued to the 4th respondent-University for

conducting special supplementary examinations in respect

of the appellant or similarly placed other candidates, as it

would effect the academic year, which in turn may disturb

the Post Graduate Common Entrance Test such as NEET

and the eligibility criteria for such examinations.

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

32. In such facts and circumstances of the case and for

the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion

that the appellant failed to demonstrate as to how he is

subjected to prejudice and disadvantage when the same

pattern question paper is followed for the past several

years, since the allotment of marks on each subject/topic

is in accordance with 2019 Regulations and Module 3 of

Assessment Module. Even if there are any minor deviations

in question paper setting or pattern of questions, it cannot

be said that such deviations are against 2019 Regulations

or Module 3 of Assessment Module and impacted on the

performance of the appellant in the summative

assessment. The subject experts of the University have to

deliberate on the new pattern introduced for the first time

in the Academic year 2020-21. Setting question papers or

pattern of questions is the domain of subject experts of the

University and the Courts would rarely interfere in

academic matters. Further, unless gross illegality is

demonstrated by the appellant, Court would not direct the

University to grant 5 grace marks, since it is the

discretionary power of the University as per Regulation

UBJ & AVRJ WA No.5 of 2022

No.11.2.9 (l). Similarly, the appellant is not entitled for the

relief of conducting special supplementary examinations or

permitting him to join the progression of 2nd year MBBS

main batch pending such examinations which is against

Regulation No.7.6 and 11.2.5 of 2019 Regulations, hence

such a prayer of the appellant is legally unsustainable.

33. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the

common order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned

single Judge does not suffer from any error or infirmity and

does not warrant any interference by this Court.

34. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any

pending shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

________________________________________ JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY Date: .03.2022 Isn