Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 847 (MP)

Bhagwati Charan Pandey v. State of M. P.

2018-10-04

R.S.JHA, SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned G.A. for the State. 3. Heard on the question of admission. 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to quash the order dated 11.05.2018 whereby the Dean of the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal has ordered that the petitioner is ineligible to participate in the Post Graduate Final year Examination in the M.D. Course on account of the fact that his attendance is short. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents/authorities to issue a certificate declaring him eligible to participate in the examination and permit him to do so. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 24.03.2018 Annexure P/3, the Head of the Department had informed the Dean that the attendance of the petitioner is 80.72% in the year 2017-18 session. However, within a span of a week thereafter on 03.04.2018 by Annexure P/2, the same Head of the Department informed the Dean that the petitioner’s attendance in the 2017-18 session was 0%. 6. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner has made serious allegations against the Head of the Department who has been impleaded in his personal capacity as respondent no. 5 stating that the respondent no. 5 has manipulated the documents and has given false information to the Dean on account of the fact that the petitioner was not complying or acceding to the illegal demand made by the respondent no. 5 for referring patients to respondent no. 5 who is running two private clinics at Bhopal. 7. It is submitted that this court in the previous petition filed by the petitioner i.e. W.P. No. 9938/2018 by order dated 09.05.2018 had directed the authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation regarding short attendance and thereafter the Dean of the College has passed an order dated 11.05.2018 stating that the petitioner is not qualified to appear in the examination on account of short attendance without giving any detailed reasons for the same. 8. It is submitted that the respondent Head of the Department communicated this order of the Dean by communication dated 05.07.2018, thereafter the petitioner again approached the respondents/authorities for condoning the short attendance, if any, as the Dean has powers to condone 10% of short attendance. 9. 8. It is submitted that the respondent Head of the Department communicated this order of the Dean by communication dated 05.07.2018, thereafter the petitioner again approached the respondents/authorities for condoning the short attendance, if any, as the Dean has powers to condone 10% of short attendance. 9. It is submitted that as the respondents did not do so, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition praying for the aforesaid directions. 10. It is submitted that the examination is going to commence from 18.10.2018 as per the notification dated 19.09.2018 Annexure P/1 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this court for the relief, as prayed for in the petition. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 12. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner in the previous examination was held ineligible on account of short attendance and had approached this court by filing W.P. No. 9938/2018 which was disposed of on 09.05.2018 with a direction to the authorities to consider his representation and take a decision thereon. 13. The document Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner was short in attendance in 2016-17 session as he had only 70.68% of attendance and in the 2017-18 session his attendance has been shown to be zero. The note appended to the order dated 03.04.2018 Annexure P/2 indicates that the petitioner’s attendance in the theory classes was practically zero and that the petitioner has availed of the medical leave of 50 days per year which is not permissible in accordance with the rules. Annexure P/3 dated 24.03.2018 filed by the petitioner which is prior in point of time to Annexure P/2 dated 03.04.2018, indicates that the petitioner’s attendance is short in the 2016-17 session but is 80% in the 201718 session, however, note two appended to the order again states that his attendance in theory classes is practically zero and note three states that he has availed 50 days medical leave which is not permissible in accordance with the rules. 14. The petitioner with a view to establishing that he has attended classes, has filed extracts of the attendance register. 14. The petitioner with a view to establishing that he has attended classes, has filed extracts of the attendance register. A perusal of page 36 to 40 of the petition which is sxtract of the attendance register clearly indicates that the petitioner was throughout, regularly and continuously absent from about November, 2017 upto March, 2018 and had not attended the theory classes. 15. In view of the aforesaid documents filed by the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the authorities have informed the petitioner that his attendance is short and in such circumstances he cannot be permitted to participate in the examination. 16. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the authorities, moreso, as apparently, the petitioner’s attendance is short and is not upto the prescribed limit. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the facts, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. 18. It is however, observed that in view of the alleged discrepancies pointed by the petitioner between Annexures P/2 and P/3 which may or may not relate to the different data relating to the attendance in practical and theory classes, the authorities would inform the petitioner in writing about the days by which his attendance is short to enable the petitioner to attend his classes in future and thereafter, if so advised, to appear in the examination. 19. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dismissed.