Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 478 (MP)

ANUJ NAGPAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017-04-10

ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, RAVI SHANKAR JHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners who are students prosecuting their M.B.B.S. course in Chirayu Medical College, Bhopal and all have obtained supplementary in the first year M.B.B.S. Examination have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to attend the second professional classes, which have commenced from 1st March 2017 as well as the second professional theory and the practical examination starting from 22.03.2017 along with the regular batch of students. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute and in fact fairly submit that a similar issue raised by other students of a different colleges was considered and has been rejected by this Court in W.P. No. 790/2017 by placing reliance on the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Medical Council of India Regulations as amended from time to time and as prevailing today. This Court in W.P. No. 790/2017 dated 24.01.2017 after duly considering the Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Muniraj Patel and others Vs. State of MP and others AIR 2008 M.P. 241 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Gaurav Awasthi and others Vs. State of MP and others in W.P. No. 15447/2006 has held as under: “The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to permit the petitioners who have appeared and passed the first professional of M.B.B.S. Course in the supplementary examinations to appear along with the main batch in the examinations of second professional MBBS Courses which have to commence from 22.04.2017 to 05.05.2017. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the University to ensure that the students who have passed the first professional examinations in supplementary examination complete the prescribed hours of teaching by conducting extra class. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners at length. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners are the students pursuing the MBBS course in the medical colleges at Rewa, Indore and Sagar. They are the students of 2014-15 batch and had appeared in the first professional examinations of the MBBS course in September, 2015. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners at length. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners are the students pursuing the MBBS course in the medical colleges at Rewa, Indore and Sagar. They are the students of 2014-15 batch and had appeared in the first professional examinations of the MBBS course in September, 2015. It is also an undisputed fact that all the petitioners got supplementary in the examination and they have thereafter appeared in the supplementary examination that was conducted in the month of March-April, 2016 and have been declared passed on 04.06.2016. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioners are at present pursuing the second professional MBBS Course along with the main batch but have not completed the necessary study hours or the full course of study of three semesters of 18 months. It is also an undisputed and admitted fact that the examination of second professional MBBS Course of main batch is going to be held from 22.04.2017 to 05.05.2017 by which date the petitioners would not have completed the necessary study hours or full course of study of three semesters of 18 months. In view of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed fact, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for a direction to the respondent-University to permit them to appear along with the main batch, cannot be acceded to, in view of the clear provision of the regulation 7 of the M.C.I. Regulations which necessarily requires that a student, in order to appear in tile second professional MBBS examination, is required to pass or clear the first Professional MBBS Examination and to complete the full course of study of three semesters of 18 months. As the petitioners have not done so, the direction as prayed for permitting them to appear in the examination of second professional MBBS Course along with the main batch of students deserves to be and is hereby rejected. As the petitioners have not done so, the direction as prayed for permitting them to appear in the examination of second professional MBBS Course along with the main batch of students deserves to be and is hereby rejected. We are of the considered opinion that keeping in mind the nature of the study in MBBS Course and the necessary academic requirements, the second prayer made by the petitioner for directing the respondents/authorities to take up extra hours of teaching to ensure that the students who have passed the first professional examination in supplementary examination complete the course along with the main batch also cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. We find support for the view taken by us from the decision of this court rendered in the case of Muniraj Patel and others Vs. State of MP and others AIR 2008 MP 241 and the judgment in the case of Gaurav Awasthi and others Vs. State of MP and others in WP No. 15447/2006 wherein the Division Bench of this court, considering the provisions of Regulation 7 of the MCI Regulations as it then stood, has rejected the similar prayer made by the petitioners therein. While expressing our respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases we are fully conscious of the fact that Regulation 7 of the MCI Regulations has been amended subsequently in the year 2010 after the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid cases. However, after perusing the amended provisions of the Regulation, a copy of which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P/4, we have expressed our agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases as the amended provision of Regulation 7 remains substantially the same and again expressly provides that though the students having obtained supplementary and having passed the same would be permitted to join the main batch, they would not be permitted to undertake the second professional examination until and unless they have completed the full course of study of three semesters of 18 months. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that in case the petitioners have any other grievance, they would be at liberty to approach the authorities who shall consider the grievance of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the regulations of the M.C.I. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is raising two additional grounds in the present petition which may be taken into consideration. He submits that the petitioners were granted admission in the M.B.B.S. course with the delay of one month in view of the cases pending before this Court and therefore, the Division bench of this Court in W.P. No. 8810/2015 (PIL) and connected matters had ordered that the last date of admission i.e. 31st of September be extended by a period of one month for the petitioners so that the M.B.B.S. course should commence from 1st of October 2015. It is submitted that the Division Bench in the aforesaid order had further directed that the authorities should take up extra classes, so that the students are able to appear in the regular first year M.B.B.S. examination on the scheduled date. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid factual aspect prevailing in the petitioners' case their first year M.B.B.S. course should be extended by a period of one month and they should thereafter be permitted to participate in the second professional examination along with the regular batch in spite of the fact that they have obtained a supplementary examination more so, as the petitioners have cleared the supplementary examination during the pendency of this petition on 07.04.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in the case of Ankush Malhotra & others Vs. Baba Farid University of Health in Civil Writ Petition No. 1192/2008 decided on 22.09.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in the case of Ankush Malhotra & others Vs. Baba Farid University of Health in Civil Writ Petition No. 1192/2008 decided on 22.09.2008. The petitioners also placed before us the minutes of the meeting held under the chairmanship of Additional Director (Administration) in Directorate of Medical Education dated 17.01.2017 in respect of certain students and representation relating to the State of Rajasthan to contend that the Director of Medical Education in that case has taken a decision to permit first year M.B.B.S. students, who had obtained supplementary to merge with the main batch. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may at the cost of repetition reiterate that Regulation 7 of the Medical Council of India Regulations specifically and clearly provide that a student can be permitted to participate in the second year professional examination only in case the student has completed the full course of study of (three semester) 18 months. In the instant case last date for admission in the case of the petitioners was extended up to 31st of October 2015 with a direction to the authorities to take up extra classes, so that the petitioners would merge with the main batch. 7. However, the said aspect and order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 8810/2015 (PIL) and connected matters dated 16.10.2015 does not in any manner help the petitioners in view of the fact that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioners were granted admission in the first year M.B.B.S. course and they have also been permitted to appear in the first year examination and therefore the order passed in the aforesaid PIL has no bearing on the issue involved in the present case namely as to whether the petitioners who have obtained supplementary examination and have not passed in first year M.B.B.S. course along with the main batch can be permitted to be merged with the main batch and participate in the second professional examination without having completed the compulsory and mandatory18 months of full course of study as mandated by Regulation 7 of the MCI Regulations. 8. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners have obtained supplementary in the first year M.B.B.S. examination have not completed 18 months of the necessary full course of study and therefore they are not eligible to participate in the second professional M.B.B.S. examination in view of the clear mandate of Regulation 7. 9. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners based on the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in W.P. No. 8810/2015 (PIL) and connected matters and the decision of the Director of Medical Education, Jaipur dated 31.01.2017, which relates to certain students of Rajasthan, deserves to be rejected in view of the clear mandate of Regulation 7 of the MCI Regulations. 10. As far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 22.09.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1192/2008 is concerned, we are constrained to observe that the said decision also does not render any assistance to the petitioners on account of the fact that in the said petition the Punjab and Haryana High Court permitted the petitioners to participate in the second professional examination only on account of the interim order that had been passed in the case and on account of lapse of time during the pendency of the petition during which the petitioner had in fact completed the course. It is pertinent to note that in the said decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has itself specified and clarified that the order passed in that case would not be treated as a binding precedent but should be treated as an order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case and the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muniraj Patel and others Vs. State of MP and others AIR 2008 M.P. 241 , W.P. No. 15447/2006 (Gaurav Awasthy & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) and W.P. No. 790/2017 (Chetan Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 24.01.2017 the facts and situation of which are identical to the present case, we do not find any reason to take a different view or refer the matter to a larger Bench. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 24.01.2017 the facts and situation of which are identical to the present case, we do not find any reason to take a different view or refer the matter to a larger Bench. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab Vs. Suchintan AIR 1994 SC 1761 while taking into consideration similar provisions of the Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 has specifically and clearly held that a candidate who fails in the first year examination in a subject or subjects and passes the said examination in the supplementary examination cannot take the second year examination at the next academic year because the necessary and mandatory period of course that is required to be prosecuted by him has not been completed between the passing of the first year in supplementary exam and the date fixed for the second year professional examination. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. C.C. as per rule.