IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08-11-2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.15582 of 2017 Dr.D.Vishnuprathap Vs ... Petitioner
1. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. Represented by its Registrar.
2. The Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi – 110 077.
(R-3 suo motu impleaded as respondent by order 08.11.2017) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent University from retrospectively applying the subsequent regulation
Rc.No.AI(3)/48325/2013 dated 31/1/2014 for the petitioner Dr.D.Vishnuprathap (Regn. No.201313307) who had joined the Post Graduate Medical Course M.D.Pathology in the Respondent University on 29/08/2013 under the regulation Rc.No.ACAD-1(3)/52811/2011 dated 17/2/2011 and to direct the Respondents to declare him as pass candidate taking his marks obtained in the supplementary examinations conducted in October 2016 for theory papers as one component and his marks obtained in the April 2016 examination for the Practical and viva voce examination as another component as per the regulation Rc.No.ACAD-1(3)/52811/2011 dated 17/02/2012 of the Respondent University at the time of admission of the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shyam Kumar For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander (for R1 & R2) Mr.V.P.Raman (for R3) O R D E R The petitioner, who is an M.B.B.S., degree holder in Government service is undergoing M.D., Pathology (non-clinical) at Government Tirunelveli Medical College. The petitioner joined the above said P.G. course on 29.08.2013. When the petitioner joined the course, the first respondent Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University regulation had adopted the component system of passing the examination in each paper. A paper in P.G. medical course would consists of both theory as well as practical and under the old regulation, the petitioner can clear the practical and theory paper separately in different examination. Whereas based on the resolution passed by the Medical Council of India, new regulation has been framed by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University by which the component system has been done away with and composite system of passing the examination has been introduced and the same was communicated to all the PG Medical colleges (affiliated to the respondent University) on 31.04.2014.
2. As per the composite system, a candidate has to pass both theory and practical in an examination as a whole and he cannot be allowed to take theory and practical separately. If one has to clear the examination, a candidate should pass both theory as well as practical in one examination as a whole. According to the petitioner, when he was admitted in the medical college on 29.08.2013, only the component system of clearing the examination was in force. Whereas the respondents are now insisting upon passing of papers consisting of theory as well as practical in the same examination and not in different examination. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court, challenging the regulation dated 31/01/2014, by which the composite system has been introduced for clearing the examination paper.
3. Heard, Mr.S.Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that when the petitioner joined the PG course on 29.08.2013, the component system was there and the same should be applied to the petitioner and the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to pass the examination papers under composite system.
4. On the other hand, Mr.D.Ravichander, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the respondent University is governed by Medical Council of India regulation. As the Medical Council of India has directed the Universities to follow the composite system, the component system has been dispensed with and the composite system has been introduced by virtue of regulation dated 31.01.2014.
5. Since the issue involved is to whether composite system or component system has to be applied while considering the the pass in examination in PG Medical course, the Medical Council of India is a necessary party to these proceedings. Hence, this Court suo motu impleads the Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi – 110 077 as third respondent in this Writ Petition.
6. Mr.V.P.Raman, learned standing counsel appearing for Medical Council of India would submit that, when the course being undergone by the petitioner is a PG Medical Course, high standards have to be maintained to determine the caliber of the student. When the level of speciality goes up, the standard should also be accordingly raised and therefore, the Medical Council of India has introduced the composite system. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. Since it is a PG course, the petitioner has to undergo the examination only at the end of the third year, namely the final year. In the final year examination, the petitioner has failed, as he had failed to get minimum marks cumulatively as prescribed by the University and Medical Council of India.
8. According to the petitioner, when he joined the PG course, it was component system, where he would be allowed to clear both theory as well as practical separately. Whereas as per the new regulation, both practical as well as theory have to be cleared in one examination as a whole. Though the regulation was introduced subsequent to joining of the course, the petitioner cannot insist that the regulation, which was enforced at the time of his admission alone would be applicable.
9. The Medical education is constantly changing according to the development of Medical Field. The Petitioner who had already successfully completed the MBBS was able to enter or able to get PG seat only because of merit. When the level of academic goes up, correspondingly the standard of education should be raised. For raising the excellence in medical education, higher standards is required. Therefore, the system of determining the merit of the students requires constant change. In that direction only, the Medical Council of India instead of allowing the students to pass the examination in theory as well as practical either in one examination or separate examination, thought it fit to bring in the system by which student should clear both theory and practical examination in one examination at a stretch and only those students are eligible to be awarded with PG degree. The yardstick now introduced by the Medical Council of India has been adopted by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. University which could not be found fault with, as it is aimed only to raise the level of medical education. It is not only in the interest of medical education but also in the interest of public. Only after passing the examinations, which have been prescribed in such a manner to raise the excellence of the medical education, any candidate could be granted PG degree as well as super speciality degrees.
10. Neither the Medical Council of India nor the Tamil Nadu Dr.
M.G.R. University could be directed to follow the old one namely component system of passing which has already been repealed or done away with. This Court has got no power to direct the respondents to enforce the system which is not in force, especially when the new system has been introduced only for advancement of medical education.
11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in Anjana S.Nair Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and others reported in 2015 (2) CWC 411 and another unreported judgment in W.P.(MD).No.21127 of 2015 in the matter of Dr.Manikandasamy Vs. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and another dated 14.12.2015, the said judgments have been given based on the facts of the said case, which has been stated in paragraph 21 of Anjana S.Nair's case and it is as follows:
"Considering all these factual aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to write her examination only under the Composite system and if such system is applied, she ought not to have been compelled to write the Theory examination which she has already passed in October 2014 itself. No doubt, the Petitioner has paid examination-fee and appeared in the examination in October 2014 and failed in the Theory examination and passed in the Practical examination. Hence, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner is barred under the Principles of Estoppal. I do not think that such principle can be applied to the present case in view of the fact that it is not on the Petitioner's own volition she has chosen to write the examination once again in the passed paper. No one would intend to do so unless it is for improvement. On the other hand, it is only by force, the Petitioner has taken the examination which is otherwise totally not required or warranted, as such writing of examination was only at the instance of the University by writing letter to all the Deans and Principals causing confusion as though the students admitted in the earlier Academic year were also to take the examination in the Composite System."
That apart, the facts of the above case relate to the period prior to introduction of the new system and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied.
12. The pattern of examination and prescribing standard for medical education cannot remain static and it should be reviewed constantly for enhancement and excellence in education and no one could take any risk, especially, when it relates to medical education as the students of medical education would be dealing with the lives of the human beings. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Though the petitioner challenged it, subsequently, it is stated that he has cleared the examination during May 2017. Though the issue has become academic, this Court thinks it fit to decide the matter on merits in the interest of public.
13. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
08.11.2017 sai Note:
Office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the writ petition.
To
1. The Registrar The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2. The Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi – 110 077.
N.KIRUBAKARAN,J
sai W.P.No.15582 of 2017 Dated: 08.11.2017