ORDER Mr. R.K. AGRAWAL, A.C.J. and Mr. N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by 14 second MBBS students praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai-25, to implement Regulation 7(7) of the Graduate Medical Education, 1997, by permitting them to join the main batch of II MBBS students (2011-2012 batch). 2. The case of the petitioners in brief are that the petitioners have joined in the first year MBBS course in the year 2011-2012 and completed the first year course. They also appeared for the first MBBS examinations conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University in August, 2012. As the petitioners could not obtain 50% of marks in each paper separately, they were declared fail and they appeared for the supplementary examinations (I MBBS) held in February, 2013 and all the petitioners have passed and now permitted to join in the second MBBS course. The grievance of the petitioners are that Regulation 7(7) of the Graduate Medical Education, 1997 framed under Section 33 of the MCI Act, 1956 mandates conducting supplementary examinations within six months to enable the students to pass and to join the main batch and the University failed to follow the said regulation and conducted supplementary examinations only in February, 2013 and the petitioners should be permitted to pursue the II MBBS course with the main batch students admitted in the year 2011-2012. 3. The said prayer is opposed by the University by filing a common counter affidavit contending as follows: (a) Regulation No.7 on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, the training period and time distribution for the MBBS medical course are fixed. As per the above said provision, every medical student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 4 1/2 years, divided into nine semesters of six months each, followed by one year compulsory rotating internship. Each semester will consist of approximately 120 teaching days of eight hours each college working time, including one hour of lunch. (b) The period of 4 ½ years is divided into three phases as follows: Phase-I : Two semesters - 1st Professional Examination (I MBBS) consisting of pre-clinical subjects. Phase-II : Three Semesters - 2nd Professional Examination (II MBBS) consisting of para-clinical subjects. (b) The period of 4 ½ years is divided into three phases as follows: Phase-I : Two semesters - 1st Professional Examination (I MBBS) consisting of pre-clinical subjects. Phase-II : Three Semesters - 2nd Professional Examination (II MBBS) consisting of para-clinical subjects. Phase-III : Two Semesters in Part I - Final Professional (Final MBBS) Two Semesters in Part II - Final Professional (Final MBBS) consisting of clinical subjects. Thus, every MBBS candidate should undergo the following teaching hours: A. Pre-Clinical Subjects (Phase-I First and Second Semester) Anatomy : 650 hours Physiology : 480 hours Bio-Chemistry : 240 hours Community Medicine : 60 hours B. Para-clinical subjects (Phase-II 5th to 7th Semester) Pathology : 300 hours Pharmacology : 300 hours Microbiology : 250 hours Community Medicine : 200 hours (including 8 weeks postings of 3 hours each) Forensic Medicine : 100 hours FTeaching of para-clinical subjects shall be 4 hours per day in 3rd semester and 3 hours per day in 4th and 5th semesters. C: Clinical Subjects (Phase-II & III - 3rd to 9th Semesters) General Medicine : 300 hours Paediatrics : 100 hours T.B. And Chest : 20 hours Psychiatry : 20 hours Skin and STD : 30 hours Community Medicine : 30 hours Anaesthesia : 20 hours General Surgery : 300 hours Orthopedics : 100 hours Opthalmology : 100 hours E.N.T. : 70 hours Radiology : 20 hours Dentistry, Obst.& Gynae .. : 300 hours (c) As per the University Regulations for MBBS degree course, minimum 80% of attendance in both theory and practical/ clinical classes separately in each subject is required for appearing in the examination and the satisfactory completion of attendance must be certified by the respective Heads of Department and forwarded by the Heads of the Institution to the University, at least 15 days prior to the commencement of the theory examinations. A candidate lacking in the prescribed attendance in any one of the subject in the first appearance shall be denied admission for the entire examinations (Part I or Part II as the case may be). (d) Any candidate who does not appear for any examination due to lack of attendance shall be permitted to appear at the next examination session, if he puts in a minimum of 80% of attendance in the extended period of study. (d) Any candidate who does not appear for any examination due to lack of attendance shall be permitted to appear at the next examination session, if he puts in a minimum of 80% of attendance in the extended period of study. Failed candidates who are not permitted to the next phase of study are also required to put in a minimum of 80% of the attendance during the extended period of study before appearing for the next examination and as per the University Regulation, there shall be no condonation of lack of attendance for the course. (e) The University is conducting examinations twice a year i.e. in the month of August and February. The candidates who failed in the first professional examination will take up next examination after six months, and second professional examination will be conducted at the end of 5th semester. As per Regulation No.8 of Graduate Medical Education, 1997, pass in first professional is compulsory before proceeding to Phase-II training. A student who failed in second professional examination shall not be allowed to appear in third professional Part-I examination, unless he passes all subjects of second professional examination. Passing third professional (Part-I examination) is not compulsory before entering for 8th and 9th semester training, however, passing of Phase I, two semesters is compulsory for being eligible for admission in 2nd professional (Phase-II). (f) It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioners in W.P.No.10992 of 2013 have already challenged Regulation 7(3) of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 before this Court in W.P.No.31098 of 2012 along with some other writ petitions. Regulation 7(3) debars students to join in II MBBS course, unless he/she has passed in Phase-I (pre-clinical subjects). Later on, the said writ petitions were withdrawn and these writ petitions are filed now seeking implementation of Regulation 7(7). (g) It is also stated that the petitioners are lacking six months attendance due to their failure in the first MBBS papers. Hence, they will not be in a position to satisfy 80% of minimum attendance requirement in II MBBS degree course for their appearance in the examination Phase-II. Therefore, the petitioners’ prayer cannot be entertained at this juncture. (g) It is also stated that the petitioners are lacking six months attendance due to their failure in the first MBBS papers. Hence, they will not be in a position to satisfy 80% of minimum attendance requirement in II MBBS degree course for their appearance in the examination Phase-II. Therefore, the petitioners’ prayer cannot be entertained at this juncture. (h) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that several failed candidates in I MBBS degree course requested the then Vice-Chancellor of the University opposing the break system and on 4.10.2011 the then Vice Chancellor of the University has addressed a letter to the Board of Governors of the MCI and requested to permit the University to allow the failed candidates of first professional candidates of MBBS degree to attend training in the II MBBS, subject to condition that they will not be permitted to appear for second phase examinations until they pass first professional examination. The Medical Council of India (MCI) having not responded, another letter dated 4.12.2012 was addressed to the Convenor, Academic Council, MCI, to take early decision, for which on 13.2.2013, the Secretary, MCI has replied stating that rules viz., existing Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and its amendments should be adhered to. Thus, the suggestion made by the University to do away with the break system was negatived by the Board of Governors of Medical Council of India. (i) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in order to overcome the difficulties faced by I MBBS students, the University proposed to conduct instant supplementary examinations for first professional MBBS degree course for the candidates admitted from the academic year 2012-2013 and the matter was placed as an agenda before the 217th meeting of the Governing Council held on 1.3.2013 and a resolution was passed to approve the conduct of Instant Supplementary Examinations for first professional MBBS degree course for the candidates admitted from the academic year 2012-2013 onwards and the resolution reads as follows: “Resolved to approve the conduct of Instant-Supplementary Examinations for I Professional MBBS degree course for the candidates admitted from the academic year 2012-2013 onwards with the following criteria: The Instant Supplementary Examination will be conducted within 30 days from the publication of results of main examinations. The candidate should have attended the main examination. It is applicable for the candidates who have failed in one subject only. The candidate should have attended the main examination. It is applicable for the candidates who have failed in one subject only. The candidate should appear for both theory (Paper I & II) and practicals in supplementary examination. If the candidate was absent either in one of the theory paper or both or practicals of a subject due to ill-health, should produce a medical certificate from the Medical Board of the college. The Internal Assessment and Attendance given for the main examination can be considered for the Instant Supplementary Examinations. Spare Answer sheets (without pre-printed register number) can be used for the Instant Supplementary Examination. The Exam application and fees should be submitted through online by concerned Dean/ Principal.” (j) As per the said resolution, the University has planned to conduct Instant Supplementary Examination within a period of one month from the date of publication of results of the main examination for I MBBS students, so as to enable them to join with the main batch students and the petitioners could not invoke Regulation 7(7) of Graduate Medical Education, 1997, for the present. 4. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is delay on the part of the University in conducting supplementary examinations, hence the petitioners, who have passed I MBBS professional examinations now, and permitted to join in the II MBBS course, cannot be denied the right to continue the course along with regular batch of MBBS students and if they are permitted, they will be in a position to satisfy the attendance requirements as per the University Attendance Regulations, and therefore, Regulation 7(7) of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 of MCI is bound to be implemented by the respondent University. The learned counsels also relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 11.11.2011 rendered in Special Civil Application No.15043/2011 and Special Civil Application No.16024/2011, wherein a direction was issued to the University to consider similar request for giving meaning to sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 7 of the Graduate Medical Education, 1997. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Dr. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University on the other hand submitted that the petitioners having failed in the I MBBS examinations held in August, 2012, they cannot be admitted in II MBBS course as there is a debarment under Regulation 7(3), which states that passing in first professional is compulsory before proceeding with Phase-II training. The petitioners are eligible to attend Phase-II training only after passing the I MBBS papers (1st Professional) by attending supplementary examinations held in February, 2013 and over six months period has already gone in between, and now the petitioners cannot join along with regular batch as 80% attendance requirement cannot be satisfied apart from attending regular classes in II MBBS course is paramount. The learned counsel further submitted that the request of the University to do away with break system having been turned down by the MCI, the University has now taken a conscious decision to conduct Instant Supplementary Examinations within one month, so as to enable the students admitted from the academic year 2012-2013 to enable them to join the main batch, and the petitioners who are admitted in the first year MBBS course during the academic year 2011-2012 cannot be permitted to join with the main batch students and prayed for dismissing the writ petitions. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit as well as MCI Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 and the Regulations of the University regarding minimum attendance. 7. From the above narrated facts it is evident that the petitioners have failed in the I MBBS examination papers held in August, 2012 and they could pass the I MBBS papers only in February, 2013. The supplementary examinations were conducted by the University only after a time gap of six months as per the University Examination Regulations. 8. The petitioners in W.P.No.10992 of 2013, earlier filed W.P.No.31098 of 2012 and challenged Regulation 7(3) of the MCI Regulations. The said regulation reads as follows: “7(3) The first 2 semester (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (Pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. The said regulation reads as follows: “7(3) The first 2 semester (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (Pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. No student shall be permitted to join the Phase II (para-clinical/clinical) group of subjects until he has passed in all the Phase I (Preclinical subjects) for which he will be permitted not more than four chances (actual examination), provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrollment.” Subsequently, the said prayer was given up and the writ petition along with connected matters were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petitions. Thus, it is an admitted position that petitioners have to pass all Papers in Phase I (Pre-clinical subjects) (I MBBS) and only thereafter they can join Phase-II (para-clinical/clinical) group subjects (II MBBS course). 9. All the petitioners have passed I MBBS papers - Phase I in February, 2013. Classes for Phase II (II MBBS course) commenced in September, 2012 itself and till February, 2013, one semester course (about six months course) was over. Thus, regular batch of students who passed Phase-I in August, 2012 have completed 1/ 3rd of the syllabus of Phase II. As stated in the counter affidavit, Phase II consists of three semesters, of which one semester was already over even before petitioners could pass their I MBBS papers Phase-I in February, 2013. At no stretch of imagination petitioners would be in a position to satisfy 80% of attendance requirements for Phase-II (II MBBS course). Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioners now, to permit them to join the main batch of II MBBS course so as to complete their course with the main batch students is an impossibility of performance. 10. Some of the petitioners instead of praying for conducting supplementary examination instantaneously, have chosen to challenge Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. If a prayer was made to conduct Instant Supplementary Examination, this Court could have possibly directed the University to conduct Instant Supplementary Examinations. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Ranjana Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1383 : (2011) 4 SCC 192 : LNIND 2011 SC 283 ordered to conduct examination at the instance of the students. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Ranjana Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1383 : (2011) 4 SCC 192 : LNIND 2011 SC 283 ordered to conduct examination at the instance of the students. In the said case, Rule 7(1) of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules, 1963 was interpreted and held that the students of the college can enforce their right by approaching the High Court praying for a direction to conduct the examination. The Patna High Court declined to grant relief and the High Court order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a direction was issued to the Bihar School Examination Board to conduct CPEd examinations for the appellants as soon as possible. The said prayer having not been made at the appropriate time by the petitioners, they have to blame themselves for this kind of situation. 11. Regulation 7(7) of the Graduate Medical Education, 1997 states as follows: “Supplementary examination can be conducted within six months so that the students who passed can join main batch and the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year.” Thus, conducting supplementary examination within six months, bearing in mind the interest of the students, who could get a pass in Supplementary Examinations to join the main batch is a mandate given to the University by the MCI as per the said Regulation. The said direction is now implemented by the respondent University by passing a resolution in its 217th meeting of the Governing Council held on 1.3.2012. As per the said resolution the University has resolved to conduct Instant Supplementary Examination within 30 days from the publication of results of the main examinations, and if results of such supplementary examination is ordered to be published within a short period, the candidates who are able to clear the I MBBS papers can join in the II MBBS course and they can also complete their course along with regular batch with more than 80% attendance in II MBBS course. 12. 12. The University having taken a decision in favour of the students admitted from the academic year 2012-2013, we are not inclined to issue any further direction, except to state that Instant supplementary examination will have to be conducted within 30 days from the date of publication of results of main examinations, and the results of the supplementary examination will have to be published within two weeks from the last date of supplementary examinations. 13. In the light of the above resolution passed by the Governing Council on 1.3.2013, the University is now not disputing its duty to conduct supplementary examinations so as to enable the I MBBS failed students to join the II MBBS course and complete the course along with regular batch as per regulation 7(7). 14. The University is bound to follow the regulations framed by the MCI. The Regulations having been framed under Section 33 of the MCI Act, 1956, with the prior approval of the Central Government, is having statutory force, and will have to prevail over the University Regulations in respect of conduct of examinations. The said issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 2894 : (1999) 7 SCC 120 : LNIND 1999 SC 665 in para 55 held that, “55. …….the Universities have to be guided by the standards prescribed by the Medical Council and must shape their programmes accordingly. The Scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 does not give an option to the Universities to follow or not to follow the standards laid down by the Indian Medical Council................ The Universities must necessarily be guided by the standards prescribed under S. 20(1) if their degrees or diplomas are to be recognised under the Medical Council of India Act. ...............” In para 57 it is again held thus, “57. In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka, AIR 1998 SC 2423 : (1998) 6 SCC 131 a Bench of three Judges of this Court has distinguished the observations made in Nivedita Jain AIR 1981 SC 2045 (supra). It has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SCW 2515 (supra) and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory. It has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SCW 2515 (supra) and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory. The Court was concerned with admissions to the MBBS course and the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council relating to admission to the MBBS course. The Court took note of the observations in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana (1979) 1 SCC 572 : AIR 1979 SC 765 (SCC at p. 580) to the effect that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. There is, under the Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent substandard entrance qualifications for medical courses. These observations would apply equally to postgraduate medical courses. We are in respectful agreement with this reasoning.” (emphasis supplied) The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Bharat Guthikonda & 2 Others v. Pondicherry University, 2006 WLR 185 : LNIND 2005 MAD 1572 held that the examination regulations issued by MCI is bound to be followed by the Universities. In the decision reported in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal, AIR 2007 SC 2264 : (2007) 10 SCC 201 : LNIND 2007 SC 773 the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to consider Regulation 12(4) of the MCI Regulations, 1997 framed under Section 33 of the MCI Act, 1956 regarding distribution of marks to various disciplines and heads of passing in each subject in respect of examinations in M.B.M.B course and the Maharashtra University issued different norms for declaring pass. In para 15 it is held thus, “15. MCI has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. The regulations framed by the MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government, in regard to any of the matters referred to in Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, will have statutory force and are mandatory. Universities must necessarily be guided by the MCI Regulations. The regulations framed by the MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government, in regard to any of the matters referred to in Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, will have statutory force and are mandatory. Universities must necessarily be guided by the MCI Regulations. Any regulations made by the Universities which are inconsistent with the MCI Regulations, or which dilute the criteria laid down by MCI will not be valid to the extent of inconsistency or dilution. (Vide State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P.) It, therefore, follows that if Clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1 of 2002 are inconsistent with MCI Regulation 12(4), they will be void to the extent of inconsistency. On the other hand, if the said Clauses merely implement, or make explicit what is implicit in MCI Regulation 12(4), then they will be valid and binding.” (emphasis supplied) The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University v. P. Anand LNIND 2011 MAD 4151 : (2012) 1 MLJ 865 quashed the University norms fixed contrary to MCI Regulations in declaring pass in final MBBS papers. The University divided the clinical subject into two, stipulating minimum pass mark in each subject, though aggregate 50% of marks in practicals with 50% in theory (including oral), fixed by MCI. The finding given by the Division Bench was that the University Regulation was contrary to MCI regulation viz., 12(4). SLP filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Attending classes by each medical student in a well equipped college was emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 2423 : (1998) 6 SCC 131 : LNIND 1998 SC 609 wherein in para 29 it is held thus, “29. A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. .........” Thus, it is beyond doubt that the petitioners must not only satisfy attendance requirement, but also must undergo grueling study of full medical education course. Further, respondent University Regulations has fixed 80% attendance for a medical student to appear for the University examinations in both theory and practical/clinical classes separately in each subject. The students aspiring to appear in any examination must satisfy the said regulation and no one can be permitted to appear for the examination in breach of the rules of the University. Rules of the University are binding on students and courts are not empowered to issue any direction contrary to rules. Admission of students in breach of University Rules regarding minimum 55% marks was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose, (2008) 17 SCC 611 : 2008 (4) CTC 741 : LNIND 2008 SC 1794 : (2008) 8 MLJ 794. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Kerala High Court in granting relief to the students by holding that plea of sympathy and concessions will not stand against legal provisions. The petitioners having not attended the medical course for over six months, they cannot be permitted to study along with main batch of 2011-2012 batch of students. 16. Considering all the above facts, we are not inclined to issue any direction as prayed for in these writ petitions. However, we make it clear that the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University is bound to conduct Instant Supplementary Examinations within 30 days from the publication of I MBBS examination Phase-I results as decided by the Governing Council on 1.3.2013 and publish the results of the Instant Supplementary Examinations within two weeks from the last date of such examination, enabling the passed students to join in the II MBBS course along with regular batch of students to satisfy Regulation 7(7) of the Graduate Medical Education, 1997. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Writ petition disposed of.