Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yudhajit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.4063/2019
JABALPUR
27.02.2019
Shri Shailesh Tiwari learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to accept the attendance of the petitioners in terms of Regulation 7(7) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') as amended upto 2016, and to direct them to treat the petitioners as regular students for the purposes of further studies as the petitioners have prayed that they be permitted to appear in the 2 nd Professional Main Examination from 1.3.2019.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners are all students of MBBS 2nd Professional Course. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners, after being selected in the NEET 2016 examination, obtained admission in the respondent college and appeared in the 1st Professional Examination in Aug-Sept.2017. It is further stated that thereafter the result of the first Professional Examination was declared in November 2017 in which the petitioners were awarded supplementary.
2THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4063/2019 The petitioners, being aggrieved, applied for revaluation but because of delay in the revaluation proceedings, the petitioners appeared in the supplementary examination held in January 2018. It is stated that the petitioners have been declared passed in the supplementary examination. It is stated that after having passed the supplementary examination the petitioners have pursued regular classes of the 2nd Professional Course and are, therefore, entitled to appear in the main examination of the 2nd Professional Course in terms of Regulation 7(7) of the Regulations as amended upto 2016.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent University had issued an order on 4.10.2018 categorically stating that the successful students who have passed the supplementary examination like the petitioners should be permitted to appear in the main batch of the 2 nd Professional Course by conducting extra classes/clinical posting to enable them to complete their respective courses. It is submitted that the petitioners have undertaken extra classes pursuant to the order of the respondent University and have completed the course but the respondent authorities are not permitting the petitioners to participate in the examination, hence the petition as prayed for.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that the provisions of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4063/2019 Regulation 7(7) of the MCI Regulations, which have been quoted by the petitioners in para-5.3 of the petition, makes it clear that a person who has passed the supplementary examination shall be permitted to appear in the 2nd Professional Course main examination only if he/she completes the full course of studies of three semesters i.e. 18 months.
Admittedly, the petitioners have not completed 18 months of studies which is a mandatory requirement laid down by Regulation 7(7) of the MCI Regulations.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have actually completed the course within 13 months by undertaking extra classes.
We are of the considered opinion that the Regulations of the MCI are mandatory and binding on all concerned. As the Regulation specifically mentions that the student has to complete the full course of studies of three semesters of 18 months and does not permit a student to appear in the 2 nd Professional Examination without having completed 18 months of studies, the petitioners who have completed only 13 months of studies cannot be permitted or directed to be permitted to appear in the 2nd Professional Final Examination.
The view taken by this Court in the present case finds support from the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Muniraj Patel and others vs. 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4063/2019 State of M.P. and others, AIR 2008 MP 241; Gaurav Awasthi and others vs. State of M.P. and others, (W.P No.15447/2006) and Chetan Choudhary vs. State of M.P and others, (W.P No.790/2017) decided on 24.1.2017, wherein the petitioners who are identically situated as the present petitioners were denied the benefit of appearing in the 2nd Professional Examination on account of the fact that they had not completed 18 months of studies after passing the 1st Professional Course.
We are also of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioners regarding completing the course by undertaking extra classes and on that count claiming right to participate in the examination also deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the provisions of the Regulations mandatorily prescribes the course of study to be 3 semesters of 18 months and in such circumstances it is not the holding of classes which is prescribed in the Regulations but the duration of 18 months which is mandatory and, therefore, it is necessary that the student for becoming eligible to participate in the 2 nd Professional Examination must go through 18 months of studies comprising 3 semesters before becoming eligible to participate in the 2 nd Professional Examination.
Apparently and admittedly, the petitioners have not done so and have pursued their studies only for 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4063/2019 13 months and are, therefore, ineligible to participate in the 2nd Professional Examination even if they have undertaken extra classes.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.
( R. S. JHA ) ( SANJAY DWIVEDI )
JUDGE JUDGE
mms/-
Digitally signed by MONSI M
SIMON
Date: 2019.03.05 15:38:04 +05'30'