Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 32 (ALL)

Avadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Agra University

1981-01-07

A.N.VARMA, SATISH CHANDRA

body1981
JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioners are students of the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (shortly M.B.B.S.) Course in the S.N. Medical College, Agra and are studying for their final professional examination. By means of this petition, they have prayed for two reliefs:- (1) A writ of certiorari quashing the decision of Agra University, Agra to apply the new curriculum recommended by the Medical Council of India and approved by the Government of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to the petitioner; (2) A writ of mandamus restraining the Agra University and the Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra from applying the aforesaid new curriculum to the petitioners. 2. Facts relevant for disposing of the controversies raised in this petition are that the petitioners were admitted to the aforesaid course in the S.N. Medical College, Agra affiliated to Agra University, Agra in the year 1976. The M.B.B.S. Course is divided into three professional courses each of one and half years. The petitioners passed their first and second professional examination and they were studying for their third professional examination when the respondent sought to introduce what has been described by the petitioners as a "new scheme" of the Medical Council of India and approved by the Government of India under Regulation No. 33 framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, by their letter dated 30-11-1977. As the courses of studies and examination for the aforesaid degree are regulated by Ordinances framed under the U.P. State Universities Act, the aforesaid scheme recommended by the Medical Council of India could not be enforced without appropriate amendments in the existing Ordinances. Consequently, the matter was taken up by the Academic Council of University which by its resolution dated 24-6-1978 agreed in principle to the implementation of the aforesaid "new scheme" recommended by the Medical Council. 3. The draft Ordinances were thereafter approved by the Academic Council by its resolution dated 10-11-1978. The revised Ordinances passed by Academic Council were then considered by the Executive Council of University at, its meeting held on 18-11-1978 and approved, Thereafter, the Registrar addressed a letter to the Chancellor and sought his formal assent to the enforcement of the proposed amended Statutes and Ordinances incorporating the "new scheme" recommended by the Medical Council. The revised Ordinances passed by Academic Council were then considered by the Executive Council of University at, its meeting held on 18-11-1978 and approved, Thereafter, the Registrar addressed a letter to the Chancellor and sought his formal assent to the enforcement of the proposed amended Statutes and Ordinances incorporating the "new scheme" recommended by the Medical Council. On the receipt of the assent, the University wrote to the principal of the respondent Medical College to indicate the necessary scheme for holding examinations which were due in February 1979 and May 1979. The Principal felt some doubt in the enforcement of the "new scheme" and consequently by his letter dated 21-12-1978 sought clarification from the Medical Council on two points:- (1) How would the "new scheme" be implemented in the case of failures: (2) Whether the "new scheme" would also apply to those currently studying for second and final professional examinations. 4. The Medical Council by its letter dated 22-12-1978 replied that the failures would be governed by the old scheme. In regard to the second query, the reply of the Medical Council was as follow :- "I am further to state that all candidates appearing for the first time are governed by the new rules." 5. The recommendation made by the Medical Council having been duly adopted through appropriate amendments in the Ordinances and Statutes, various Academic Bodies viz., Academic Council, the Board of Studies and the Executive Council decided to enforce the new curriculum with immediate effect. In regard to the third and final professional Examination, these bodies decided to implement the new syllabus with the batch scheduled to appear at this examination in December, 1980. 6. This gave rise to resentment among the petitioners who submitted a written representation complaining against the enforcement of the "new scheme" asserting that the new curriculum ought not and could not be legally and properly applied to them i.e., to the 1976 batch which had already passed the first and second professional examination. It was further stated that these students would be legally governed by the syllabus prescribed for the third and final professional examination as it existed at the time of their admission to the course. In particular, it was stressed that these students had already passed the paper of Social and Preventive Medicines, which was but another name for Community Medicines at their second professional examination. In particular, it was stressed that these students had already passed the paper of Social and Preventive Medicines, which was but another name for Community Medicines at their second professional examination. They could not, therefore, be legitimately asked to appear again at the paper of Community Medicine which has been prescribed as a subject for the third and final professional examination under the 'new schemes'. Some meetings appear to have taken place thereafter between the petitioners and various Academic Bodies of the respondent. The petitioners contend that the respondents failed to see their way into accepting the plea of petitioners that the new scheme could not be applied to them. 7. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of respondent University, the various assertions made in the writ petition have been exhaustively traversed. In substance, the defence of the respondents is that the University was bound by the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, a body constituted under the said Act, to implement the changes recommended by the Medical Council in the courses of studies and the scheme of examination prescribed by the Medical Council. The Medical Council is a statutory body which has been made solely responsible for regulating and controlling the standards of Under-Graduates Medical Education imparted at various Medical Colleges of India. No University or Medical College could, because of the stringent provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, was a free agent in matters concerning the courses of medical studies. The impugned regulation having been duly framed by the Medical Council of India and approved by the Government of India under Regulation No. 33, the respondent University had no option but to implement the same by making appropriate amendments in its existing Statutes and Ordinances. Indeed, if the respondents did not immediately enforce the recommendation of the Medical Council, the students themselves would be confronted by the risk of the degrees granted to them not being recognised by the Medical Council of India. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are clearly of the view that this petition has no merits. 9. For the petitioners broadly three points were urged in support of this petition. We will deal with them seriatim. 10. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are clearly of the view that this petition has no merits. 9. For the petitioners broadly three points were urged in support of this petition. We will deal with them seriatim. 10. The first point urged was that the courses of studies and the scheme of examination prescribed for the three professional examinations by the Ordinances, which were in force at the time of the admission of the petitioners in the year 1976, alone could apply to the petitioners and the new syllabus recommended by the Medical Council and adopted by the respondents could not legally be enforced in regard to the petitioners. Amplifying the argument, learned counsel contended that the decision to apply the new courses of studies to the petitioners batch would be deemed to have been taken in the exercise of the delegated powers of legislation and as such the decision could not be applied retrospectively. The "new scheme", it was urged, was an integrated scheme which was capable only of being enforced from the batch studying for the first professional examination. It could not apply to those who had already passed the first or second professional examinations under the old syllabus. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no substance in this argument. We find nothing in the State Universities Act or the Statutes framed thereunder or in any principle enforceable at law which might support the wide contention raised by the petitioners counsel. The fact that there exists a specified course of studies or a scheme of examination for the three professional examinations at the time of the admission of students, does not, in our view, imply that the Academic Bodies charged with the responsibilities of prescribing Courses of Studies and schemes of Examinations, cannot for reasons of academic exigencies or for improved standards of Under-Graduates Medical Education, modify the same consistently with the recommendations or views of the Medical Council, an expert body statutorily constituted avowedly for maintaining proper standards of Medical Education. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the powers vested in the academic body to frame Ordinances prescribing Courses of Study can be repeatedly exercised under the General Clauses Act, and we find no bar either in the State Universities Act or in any Statute or Ordinance framed thereunder or in any general principle enforceable at law which might bar the academic bodies from suitably modifying the Courses of Studies from time to time applying the same even in the case of those who have already passed the first or the second professional examination. There was nothing in the conduct of the respondents while admitting the petitioners to the M.B.B.S. Course in the year 1976 which might have led them (the petitioners) to believe that the Course of Studies prescribed for the various professional examinations could not be suitably modified from time to time. 12. Furthermore, we have examined the "new scheme" and we find nothing therein which might sustain the argument that the respondents University or College have modified the course, to a degree which can lead to the inference that the respondents are introducing courses which are completely foreign to the subject of studies in regard to which the petitioners had sought admission. The "new scheme" does not purport to introduce any new subject of studies. It merely professes to lay emphasis on the importance of social factors in relation to the problems of health and disease so that medical education may be more community based. The underlying idea behind the new curriculum is to produce a Medical Graduate who may be capable of functioning independently and effectively both under the rural and urban settings. An analysis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India clearly leads to the conclusion that the change sought to be introduced is only with regard to the approach, objective and emphasis of the Medical Education with a view to making these Medical Graduates socially more useful to the community at large. It is for this reason that the Medical Council recommended that the teaching of Community Medicine would not only be confined to the second professional course, but that it should be extended throughout the teaching period spread over all the three professional courses. It is for this reason that the Medical Council recommended that the teaching of Community Medicine would not only be confined to the second professional course, but that it should be extended throughout the teaching period spread over all the three professional courses. We are not persuaded that the new syllabus introduces an alteration which is so basic, so inherently different from the old one as may have created any insuperable difficulties or problems for the students preparing for the third professional examination warranting intervention by courts. The first point urged in support of the petition, therefore, fails. 13. We turn now to the second point. It was urged that though the "new scheme" was approved by the Government of India in November 1977, it was not applied to the students taking the third professional examinations in the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 (September) that is to the batches admitted in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. It was urged that between the students admitted in those years and the petitioners, there was no real distinction and, therefore, the petitioners have been clearly discriminated against. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has thus been violated. The argument is devoid of any merit. For though, the recommendations had been made by the Medical Council towards the end of 1977, the new curriculum could not have been introduced straightway without the necessary formalities of amending the Statutes and the Ordinances which alone lay down the Courses of Study and the Scheme of Examination. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the various processes which have had to be gone through before the scheme was adopted by the University have been set out in detail. Thus, it was not until 28-8-1979 that the Board of Faculty passed a resolution deciding, inter alia, that the recommendation of the Medical Council of India in respect of final professional examination would be implemented with the batch scheduled to appear at the examination in December 1980. The Academic Council accepted the advice of the Board at its meeting held on 30-8-1979. The Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Academic Council held on 8-9-1979. The University, thereafter, asked the Medical College by its letter dated 25-10-79 inter alia to implement the recommendations of the Medical Council in regard to the final professional examination of students with effect from December 1980. 14. The Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Academic Council held on 8-9-1979. The University, thereafter, asked the Medical College by its letter dated 25-10-79 inter alia to implement the recommendations of the Medical Council in regard to the final professional examination of students with effect from December 1980. 14. It is thus obvious that until all these statutory formalities had been gone through the new curriculum could not legally be applied to the students of the above mentioned batches. 15. It is settled law that Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated by enacting a law which applies generally to all persons who come within its ambit as from the date on which that law becomes operative. Article 14 strikes at differentiation in the application of laws between persons who are similarly circumstanced. It does not strike at a differentiation which results from the enactment of a law between transactions or acts governed thereby and those which are not covered by the enactment. The Supreme Court has time and again ruled that every law must have a beginning or time from which it operates and that no rule which seeks to change the law can be held to be invalid for the mere reason that it effected an alteration in the law as from a certain specified date (See AIR 1960 SC 923 (931); AIR 1965 SC 134 (136) and (1969) 3 SCC 311 (318): ( AIR 1970 SC 778 ).) The mere fact, therefore, that the new syllabus was not applied to the batches admitted in the years 1973 to 1975 cannot by itself lead to the inference that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated. What is significant is that among the batch of the students admitted in the year 1976, there is no discrimination. The second argument, therefore, also fails. 16. The third and the last contention was that the decision of the University Authorities to implement the new curriculum to the students scheduled to appear at the final professional examination in December 1980 is arbitrary. It was contended that the application of the new curriculum to the petitioners batch has inevitably increased their burden of students. Besides, the petitioners would have to prepare for their examination under the "new scheme" within less than the normal period of one and half years allowed for studies before each professional examination. It was contended that the application of the new curriculum to the petitioners batch has inevitably increased their burden of students. Besides, the petitioners would have to prepare for their examination under the "new scheme" within less than the normal period of one and half years allowed for studies before each professional examination. Not only this, the petitioners would have to prepare also for an additional subject, namely, Community Medicine, a subject which they had already passed at their second professional examination. 17. Having given the argument a careful thought we are not satisfied that the decision to enforce the "new scheme" in regard to the final professional examination scheduled to be held in December, 1980 (subsequently postponed to sometime in January or February 1981) is arbitrary or unreasonable. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University has set out in considerable detail how the decision was taken by the various Academic Bodies of the University. 18. The matter of implementing the new curriculum was first taken up by the Academic Council on 24-6-1978 at which it was generally agreed that the "new regulations" of the Medical Council of India be enforced. Draft Ordinances were thereafter approved by the Academic Council vide its resolution dated 10-11-1978 and by the Executive Council, on 18-11-1978. The Board of Studies in Medicine then considered the matter regarding courses of studies for various examinations in the light of the new Ordinances and it resolved at its meeting held on 31-7-1979 that a sub-committee consisting of heads of all the departments might work on the distribution of courses as well as the teaching and placement schedule along with other relevant matters for teaching second and final professional courses of studies with a view to implementing the new system of examination. The sub-committee went into the question and recommended, inter alia that the final professional examination be implemented with the batch scheduled to appear at the said examination in December 1980. The Board of Studies accepted the recommendations of the sub-committee. The decision was then accepted by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 30-8-1978 and by the Executive Council by its resolution dated 8-9-1979. 19. The decision was taken by the various Academic Bodies at different levels. The Board of Studies accepted the recommendations of the sub-committee. The decision was then accepted by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 30-8-1978 and by the Executive Council by its resolution dated 8-9-1979. 19. The decision was taken by the various Academic Bodies at different levels. In the decision making process, the professors and Heads of the Department of respondent College were also actively involved, in addition to the other members of the Academic Council and the Executive Council. We have no reason to think that in taking the decision these academicians had not taken into consideration the feasibility of enforcing the "new scheme" of examination with the Examination scheduled to be held in December 1980. We are clearly of the view that in a matter of this character, this Court should not interfere with the decision of the Academic Bodies unless it is demonstrably arbitrary, which the petitioners have failed to do. 20. Furthermore, when the students approached the authorities with the complaint against the implementation of the "new scheme", the College on the request of the students held a meeting on 26-7-1980 of all the Heads of the Departments and the students representatives and at this meeting it was decided that if there was any difficulty in the teaching of the new curriculum during the routine hours of the teaching and clinics, the same would be covered up in extra time before the commencement of the examination. In paragraph 34 of the aforesaid counter-affidavit, it is asserted that the students after discussing the matter among themselves agreed to the suggestion put forward at this meeting. 21. Not only this, the Board of Faculty had at its meeting held on 2-4-1980 passed a resolution after hearing the students representatives that if the students gave an undertaking that they were prepared to run the risk of the postponement of the examination and de-recognition of their M.B.B.S. Degrees by the Medical Council, the University was prepared to hold the examination in accordance with the old scheme. The students, however, refused to give such an undertaking. 22. The facts mentioned above clearly show that the decision to implement the "new scheme" was taken after the deliberation and on relevant considerations. At any rate, it was not taken arbitrarily and this Court sees no ground for interfering with the same. The students, however, refused to give such an undertaking. 22. The facts mentioned above clearly show that the decision to implement the "new scheme" was taken after the deliberation and on relevant considerations. At any rate, it was not taken arbitrarily and this Court sees no ground for interfering with the same. We are not satisfied that in the implementation of the new curriculum, the petitioners have been confronted by any insuperable situation, whether it would be reasonably feasible for the students to cover the course prescribed under the new curriculum before the examination is held is, in our opinion, a matter of which the Academic Bodies of the respondent University were the best Judge. We have no reason to think that these bodies had not bestowed sufficient thought to this problem. In the case reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141 : (1980 All LJ 571) the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view in AIR 1965 SC 491 that unless there is an infraction of some law, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the Academic Bodies on academic matters or educational questions. The petitioners have totally failed to demonstrate any such breach. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid considerable emphasis on the fact that they having already passed the course of social and preventive medicine at their second professional examination, the respondent could not legitimately ask the petitioners again to appear at the same paper in their final professional examination. It was urged that Community Medicine is but another name for the Course of Social and Preventive Medicine. As we have already mentioned above, we do not find any fundamental error in the decision of the Medical Council to introduce Community Medicine as a subject also at the final professional examination. The Medical Council, as disclosed by its recommendations, clearly seems to think that Community Medicine should be taught throughout the teaching period (vide Appendix "B" to the bulletin published by the Medical Council of India, 1977 reproducing the recommendations). At any rate, we find no warrant for interfering with the decision of an expert body like the Medical Council to introduce Community Medicine also as a subject of Study for the final professional examination. At any rate, we find no warrant for interfering with the decision of an expert body like the Medical Council to introduce Community Medicine also as a subject of Study for the final professional examination. It is possible, as appears from a perusal of the "new scheme" that some practical aspects of the subject of Community Medicine, with the object of providing field experience in rural health, not taught at any earlier stage of Under-Graduate Medical Education were intended to be introduced for the final professional course. At any rate, we are not satisfied that there is any repetition of the examination such as was contended for by the petitioners. 24. Learned counsel also sought to place reliance on a provision in the "new scheme" to the effect that the candidates who have passed in one subject need not appear in that subject again in any subsequent examination. We are clearly of the view that this provision has no application to the problem at hand. The "new scheme" itself provides for teaching Community Medicine both in the second and the third phases of Under-Graduate Medical Education. It seems to us, as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the said provision is applicable only to supplementary examination and not to different professional examinations. 25. We, therefore, find no substance in the third and the last point also. 26. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.