Karnataka High Court
Dr Ch Laxman Reddy S/O Ch Sambi Reddy vs The Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 29 November, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.13713 OF 2006(EDN-EX)
BETWEEN :
DR CH LAXMAN REDDY S/O CH SAMBI REDDY
32 YEARS, POST GRADUATE SUTDENT OF
MD (RADIO-DIAGNOSIS),
SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101 ...PETITIONER
( By Sri. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV FOR M/S LINC AND CO.,
Sri. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV )
AND :
1 THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2 THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR
2
BANGALORE 560 041
3 SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST
TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE
TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
5 DR A R PATIL
PRINCIPAL, SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL
COLLEGE, TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101.
6 DR PURNIMA HEGDE
PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
OF RADIO-DIAGNOSIS,
SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101.
NO.460-F, 6TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK WEST,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 82.
7 DR UMESH K
PROFESSOR OF RADIO-DIAGNOSIS,
SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
TAMAKA, KOLAR 563 101.
NO.378, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, ,
SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE 80.
8 DEVARAJ URS UNIVERSITY
TAMAKA, KOLAR-01,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR
9 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
3
AIWAZ-IE-GHAL MARG,
FIROZ SHAH, KOTLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
10 UNION OF NDIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
PARYAVANTAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX LODI,
NEW DELHI-110001
REP. BY ITSSECRETARY ....RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. N K RAMESH, ADV R1 & 2,
Sri. M N SESHADRI, ADV FOR R6,
M/S. M R NAIK & ASSOCIATES, ADVS FOR R3 & R7),
Sri. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV FOR R-9 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1
UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT A SEPARATE THEORY IV PAPER
EXAMINATION OF THE RGUHS PG 2006 MD (RD)
EXAMINATION UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-University to conduct separate theory-IV 4 paper examination of the PG course and also to issue writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-University not to appoint respondents 6 and 7 or any other staff of the department of Radio Diagnosis as internal examiners of the petitioner for the practical examination commencing from 6.10.2006 and further, for a direction to the 1st respondent-University to conduct enquiry as to the humiliation and harassment to which the petitioner is subjected to by respondents 5 to 7 and other staff members of the department of Radio Diagnosis and also regarding irregularities committed by respondents 6 and 7 and to allow the petition.
2. Petitioner joined post graduate course in Radio Diagnosis (MD) in the 4th respondent-Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College for the academic year 2000-2001. According to him, he has attended the classes regularly from the date of commencement of the course from September 2000 to December 2001, for more than one year. The duration of the course is three years. After one year of his study, 5 petitioner was compelled to take leave due to ill health and he returned to his home town Hyderabad for treatment. He has also produced medical certificate in this regard. The Principal of the college has issued an endorsement that petitioner can be permitted to appear for exams if he has got 80% attendance. For the academic year 2000-2001, he had 85% attendance. After treatment, he returned back to the college during November 2004 and thereafter, he had been attending the classes regularly and is having 80% attendance. He appeared for September 2006 examinations by completing three years in PG course. It is stated, there are certain irregularities in the department. The 6th respondent being the Head of the Department of Radio Diagnosis, travels from Bangalore every day and she is irregular in attending the college and taking classes. She attends the college only once a week and she works in other hospitals at Kolar and Bangalore on the remaining days. Petitioner had been subjected to harassment and humiliation and had not been permitted to take up exams stating that there is shortage of attendance. However, by virtue 6 of the interim order, he has attended three of the papers, but for the 4 th paper, he had not been permitted to take up the exams. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-college has submitted that petitioner was not residing in the hostel which is abutting to the hospital and rather, he was traveling 7 kms every day from Kolar to the college, as such, he cannot be called as a resident of the college and his total absence in the hostel of the hospital and as well as to the college rendered him not to take up the exams and it was declared that he has got shortage of attendance, as such, he is not entitled for the relief as sought for.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-University has submitted that petitioner was admitted to the course during the 7 academic year 2000-2001 and even according to him, he discontinued the course for two years either on health grounds or some other reasons and thereafter, he has completed the course in the year 2006 for which the regulation does not provide for. When there is shortage of attendance below 80% his case cannot be considered. As such, petition has become infructuous and he cannot be treated as having completed the course. Even in the examinations taken by him by virtue of the interim order of this Court, he has only appeared for three papers and not for the 4th paper.
6. It appears, petitioner has pursued his course during 2000- 2001, which is for three years and for the remaining subjects, he attended during 2004-2006. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12281/2006, petitioner had been permitted to take up the examinations from the Mysore Medical College which is an alternative center, having considered the victimization of the petitioner. There are serious allegations made against the petitioner 8 regarding attendance shortage vis-a-vis petitioner also made some allegations against the HOD and other staff of the department and even the parents of the petitioners have supported him in this regard.
7. There is a misunderstanding between the petitioner and the college authorities. The word 'Residency' is defined under the Chambers 21st century dictionary, which if taken in a technical sense, means 'permanent engagement at a particular venue' and if it is taken in the medical sense it is 'period, after internship, of advanced specialised medical training for doctors in hospitals'. It specifically refers to a sort of medical training and it is not necessary that they have to reside therein. Traveling 7 kms. everyday from Kolar to the college does not take away the spirit of residency. Petitioner was said to be residing at Kolar and as per his submission, he was attending all the classes from Kolar itself, which does not make out any irregularity to uncover the requirement. The grievance of the college is that petitioner was not residing in the hostel and was not regular in 9 attending classes. On the other hand, petitioner's grievance is, though he was residing outside, he was attending the night rounds and also assignments entrusted to him. While calculating the deficiency in attendance, the contention of the 4th respondent-college that he was residing elsewhere as such, there is shortage of attendance, cannot be accepted and treated as shortage of attendance. This Court also, by an interim order, permitted him to take up the exams by changing the examination center to Mysore Medical College, having examined the irregularities. However, according to the petitioner, based on the message sent by the college authorities he had not been allowed to write examination in the theory-IV paper.
8. It is for the 1st respondent-University to take decision in this regard by holding an enquiry against the conduct of the petitioner as well as against the HOD of the 4th respondent-college and regarding sufficiency of his attendance and, on such satisfaction, petitioner be allowed to take up the remaining practical and theory examinations, 10 for which he was not permitted and to declare his results. In the event the petitioner is found to be not having sufficient attendance, then petitioner may not be entitled for further relief.
9. It is for the petitioner to appear before the 2 nd respondent- Registrar-Evaluation of the University within one month from today and to give a representation. On such representation being given, it is for the University to hold an enquiry with regard to the irregularities pointed out against the Management as well as against the petitioner and to find out whether there is shortage of attendance.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of. I.A.No.I/2007 filed for direction is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkp