Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Ku. Tina Omprakash Ambadkar And Another vs Maharashtra University Of Health And ... on 1 November, 2018

Author: S.M. Modak

Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, S.M. Modak

0111wp7241.18                                                                                      1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                       WRIT PETITION NO.  7241  OF  2018
                                                       
(Ku. Tina Omprakash Ambadkar & Anr. vs. Maharashtra University of Health and Science, Nashik
                                 thr. its Registrar  & Ors.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions                 Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.


                                                          CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                                   S.M. MODAK, JJ.              

NOVEMBER 01, 2018.

We have heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhijit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The reply tendered by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel is taken on record.

3. The petitioners admissions to Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course in Non Resident Indian (NRI) quota was regularized on 06.04.2018. Thereafter respondent No. 1 - University has declared their result on 11.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 respectively. The petitioners have now approached this Court with a grievance that though they are eligible to appear in 3rd and 4th Year of BDS examination respectively, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are finding them disqualified for want of requisite attendance. The petitioners assert that though their results have been declared late, respondent No. 3 - College did permit them ::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 03:25:11 ::: 0111wp7241.18 2 to attend higher classes and respondent No. 3 - College is also supporting this stand of the petitioners.

4. Though respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not in a position to dispute these facts, Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has relied upon the provisions contained in Regulations of Dental Council of India, to urge that minimum attendance of 240 days in a year is essential and for completing it, the petitioners ought to have been admitted to next year in January 2018. He is relying upon the circular dated 28.02.2013 to urge that this attendance and Academic year begins only after declaration of result by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The period during which result could not be declared cannot be treated as period spent for undergoing course. The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 1 of 2014, particularly clause 38 (ii) and clause 40 (Explanation) are pressed into service by him for this purpose.

5. We have perused those provisions. Regulation No. 38 (ii) speaks of a candidate provisionally allowed to appear because of directives of Court or the Competent Authority and declares that result of such candidate would be withheld for want of eligibility. If result is declared, as eligibility is established, the Academic term of such candidate starts from the date of declaration of his result and not from the date of declaration of regular result. The explanation to Regulation 40 is on same lines. The Circular dated 28.02.2013 again places emphasizes only on this aspect.

6. It is, therefore, obvious that Regulations or Circular consider the case of a student who is held not eligible and permitted to appear provisionally because of intervention by the Court. This Regulation or Circular does not, therefore, consider actual attendance of higher classes by such candidate or its impact.

7. Here, the petitioners had taken admission in NRI quota, prosecuted studies and legally appeared for respective examinations. For regular students, result of that examination was declared on 30.01.2018. The NRI status and, therefore, admission of respective petitioners is confirmed on 06.04.2018 by the Admission Regulatory Authority and thereafter their result has been declared either on 11.05.2018 or 22.05.2018. The petitioners have claimed that they have attended classes after 30.01.2018 and, therefore, have requisite attendance. This is supported by respondent No. 3 - College. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not in a position to dispute this aspect.

8. Where, for any reasons, such students were not permitted to attend classes and, therefore, have not attended classes, they may become eligible for admission to next higher semester/ year only after declaration of result. The Circular and Regulations relied upon by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 will be applicable in that situation when the students could not actually attend classes. Here, as the petitioners have attended classes, we find that arrangement made by the University is not attracted.

9. We, therefore, direct respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to permit the petitioners to appear for 3rd and 4th Year B.D.S. examination. If necessary, respondent No. 3 shall re-submit examination forms to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The same shall be processed expeditiously so as to save further loss of time and year of education of the petitioners.

10. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                       JUDGE                                 JUDGE
                         *GS.




           ::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018                         ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 03:25:11 :::