Madras High Court
Anjana S.Nair vs The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical ... on 11 March, 2015
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.19564 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 Anjana S.Nair ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai ? 600 032, Rep. by its Registrar. 2.The Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai ? 600 032. 3.The Principal, Sri Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Padanilam, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District ? 629 161. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to declare forthwith the petitioner as pass and award her with the Post Graduate Degree of MDS (Orthodontics) by taking into account the marks obtained by her in the Theory Examination held in April 2014 (Growth and Development Basics) in Orthodontics Diagnosis and Radiology Bio Mechanics Tissue Changes Orthodontics Techniques and Treatment Planning Recent Advances in Orthodontics (168/300 marks) and the Clinical Examination held in October 2014 (170/300) marks and pass such further or other orders. !For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nisha banu ^For Respondents : Mr.C.Karthik (for R1 and R2) Mr.Isaac Mohanlal (for R3) Orders reserved on : 02.03.2015 ******** :O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is as follows:-
?to issue writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to declare forthwith the petitioner as pass and award her with the Post Graduate Degree of MDS (Orthodontics) by taking into account the marks obtained by her in the Theory Examination held in April 2014 (Growth and Development Basics) in Orthodontics Diagnosis and Radiology Bio Mechanics Tissue Changes Orthodontics Techniques and Treatment Planning Recent Advances in Orthodontics (168/300 marks) and the Clinical Examination held in October 2014 (170/300) marks?
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
She joined Post Graduate Degree Course ? MDS (Orthodontics) in the 3rd respondent college in May 2011. Duration of the course is three years. The 3rd respondent college is affiliated to the first respondent University. As per the modified University Regulation, 2010-11 and based on the Dental Council of India Regulation, 2007, there is one examination at the end of the first year and at the end of third year, there will be three theory papers apart from Clinical/Practical Examination and Viva-Voce examination). The first respondent University introduced its regulations, namely, the Regulations for the Master of Dental Surgery Course - 2007 on par with the Dental Council of India Regulation- 2007 but with slight modification. The petitioner took the first year examination i.e., paper ? I (Basic Applied Science) held in April 2012 and passed the same by securing 56 marks out of 100 marks. She continued the course for the next two years with sufficient attendance and became eligible to take the final examination in April 2014.
The third respondent college forwarded the petitioner's dissertation to the first respondent University with prescribed fee. The petitioner took the final examination in April 2014 i.e., three theory papers along with the practical examination and viva-voce. Results were announced on 18.05.2014 and the petitioner was declared pass in all the three theory examinations and dissertation. The petitioner secured 168 marks out of 300 marks and 56 marks out of 100 marks in the theory examination and dissertation respectively. However, she failed her clinical examination and viva-voce by securing only 120 marks out of 300 marks. At the time of remitting the examination fee for the next examination (October 2014), the respondents informed the petitioner that she had to take all the three theory examinations and the clinical examination and viva-voce in October 2014. The petitioner paid the examination fee for the theory examination and the clinical examination and viva-vace as time was running short for such payment. She took the examination held in the month of October 2014. She passed in the clinical examination and viva-voce securing 170 marks out of 300 marks, but failed in the theory examination securing only 143 marks out of 300 marks. But in the case of one Aswathy, who was in the same batch of M.D (Microbiology Course), she was permitted to write only the practical examination as per the 2012 Regulation, whereas, the petitioner has to take all the theory examinations and the clinical examination. The respondents have not followed the very same yardstick in the case of the petitioner as has been done in the case of the said Aswathy. Component pass is applicable for the petitioner as per 44th SAB agenda of the expert committee meeting held on 27.06.2012. As per para 44(8) of agenda, 2011-2012 Regulations was implemented for all the PG degree courses which is only the Component System. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 15.11.2014 requesting to declare her pass in the Post Graduate Degree MDS course, as she had already declared pass in all the three theory examinations with the top score of 168 marks out of 300 marks in April 2012. When there is no need for the petitioner for taking the already passed theory examinations, she was forced by the University to take the same theory examination unnecessarily in October 2014. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed with the relief as stated supra.
3. The third respondent college filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:-
As per the University Regulation, the system in vogue for the students admitted in the academic year 2011-2012 was that the theory papers and practical tests were treated as separate components (Component System). Therefore, according to the Component System, the petitioner has to take again the practical tests alone. The University announced the supplementary examination schedule for October 2014 and the college collected the examination fee from the petitioner for the said practical test. By that time, the University officials informed that the University had decided to give up the present system (Component System) and to introduce a new system (Composite System) from April 2014 examination, which was in tune with the Dental Council of India Regulations. Hence, the University officials insisted the payment of examination fee for both the theory examinations and the practical tests in the case of the petitioner. The college collected the examination fee for both the practical and theory papers and remitted the same on 18.09.2014. The petitioner took the examinations as scheduled in October 2014 and she passed all the practicals, however, failed in the theory papers. The system that would be appropriate to be applied in the case of petitioner is the Component System, which system was in vogue at the time when the petitioner joined the course in 2011. The new system (Composite System) has been introduced by the University obviously for the students who are to take the examinations in April 2016 i.e., those who joined the course in the academic session 2013-2014. This is quite evident from the fact that the University itself insisted upon the petitioner to take again only three theory papers along with the failed practical tests in October 2014. As per the Composite Systems, which the University is said to have introduced in tune with the DCI Regulations, the petitioner must have been asked to take even the theory paper ? I which she has passed in April 2012 along with the present examinations held in April 2014 and in October 2014. Only in March 2014, the University informed all the Dental Colleges about the changes brought about in the MDS theory paper pattern, marks distribution and result processing in tune with the DCI norms and that the Component System would be removed from April-2014 examination session onwards. As per the Dental Council of India Regulations (Composite System), paper IV is essay, whereas under University Regulation (Component System), paper IV is Recent Advances in Orthodontics. Under Composite System maximum marks is 75 for each theory paper, whereas under the Component System, maximum marks is 100 for each theory paper. In respect of dissertation no marks awarded in Composite System, whereas 100 marks were awarded under Component System.
4. The first and second respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:-
The petitioner joined M.D.S Degree course during academic year 2011- 2012. As per the University norms, minimum pass mark is 50% in each proper. At the end of the first year, the petitioner appeared for the Part ? I subject, namely, Applied Basic Sciences in the examination held in April 2012 and passed with 56 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner appeared for M.D.S (Orthodontics) Final Part Examinations in April 2014 and passed in dissertation and secured 71 marks out of 100 marks and also passed in theory examinations and secured 168 marks out of 300 marks. However, she failed in practicals and viva voce and secured 120 marks out of 300 marks. Hence, the petitioner reappeared in the Final Part examinations in October 2014. As per the Regulations, the petitioner has to secure minimum 50% marks in theory, practical including viva voce examination. In October 2014 examination, the petitioner passed in practical examination including viva voce and failed in theory examination. Therefore, the petitioner was declared fail. The Standing Academic Board is the highest authority of the first respondent University, which has power to make regulation and amend or repeal the same. The Standing Academic Board in its 44th Meeting held on 15.06.2012 decided that for all the Post Graduate Degree Courses, the component pass system be implemented with effect from August 2012. The above Component System was removed by the Standing Academic Board in the resolution passed at the 47th meeting held on 18th December 2013 and to follow the norms of the respective central councils from the April 2014 examination sessions onwards. The above decision was informed to all the Deans/Principals of the Dental Colleges affiliated to the University conducting M.D.S. degree courses. The Standing Academic Board in its 46th meeting held on 17.06.2013 decided to conduct the M.D.S. examination following the norms of the Dental Council of India from October 2013 session onwards. As the petitioner has failed in practical including viva voce in April 2014 examination and has appeared in the examination held in October 2014 to write the examination for all the subjects including practical and vivo voce, she has no locus standi to raise a dispute now. The petitioner is unnecessarily comparing the Regulation passed for the M.D.S. with that of M.D., (Microbiology), P.G., Non-clinical course as the M.D., (Microbiology) course is covered by the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and the said Regulations is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner is covered by the Regulations of Dental Council of India.
5. Ms.J.Nishabanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner need not write theoretical examination in October 2014, has, however, written such paper also and failed, since the University insisted to write all the papers together. Therefore, such failure in the theoretical paper should not be taken into consideration.
6. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent college reiterated the contention raised in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and supported the petitioner. He further submitted that the issue, which requires to be considered by this Court, is as that at what point of time the University can switch over the examination pattern. He invited this Court's attention to resolutions 43, 44 and 46 of the first respondent University to contend that the Composite System is made applicable only to students who are admitted from academic year 2013-2014, whereas the petitioner was admitted in the academic year 2011-2012.
7. Per contra, Mr.C.Karthic, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, after reiterating the contention raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, further submitted that after having taken examination without objecting to the same, the petitioner cannot now question the conduct of examination and therefore, she is estopped from raising the such objection. All the students were treated equally. He further submitted that Dental Council Regulation are always binding and therefore, there is no legitimate expectation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 2004(4) CTC 227 (State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. S.V.Bratheep (Minor) and others).
8. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Component System of examination as prevailed at the time of admission of the petitioner or the Composite System of examination introduced by the University in its 47th meeting held on 18.12.2013, is applicable to the petitioner. In short, the question is, which pattern of examination out of the above two, is applicable to the petitioner.
10. Before answering the said issue, it is better to understand the above said two system of examination. It is not in dispute that under the Composite System all the theoretical papers and practicals and viva voce are treated as one unit and if the candidate fails in one exam, he/she has to take up all the exams once again. On the other hand, under the Component System, theoretical is considered as one component and practical and viva voce is treated as another component. The candidate, who fails in one component, has to repeat the examination only in that failed component. In other words, passed component need not be written once again as in the case of Composite System.
11. Keeping these two systems of examination in mind, let us analysis the factual aspects of the matter in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted to M.D.S (Orthodontics) Post Graduate Degree course in the third respondent college in May 2011. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has joined the M.D.S. in the academic year 2011-2012. Duration of the said course is three years. At the time of joining the course in the academic year 2011-2012, the first respondent University in its 43rd meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 17.11.2011, resolved in agenda No.43(15) as follows:-
?AGENDA NO;43(15) THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF STUDIES IN P.G. MEDICAL /DENTAL/ AYUSH/AHS DEGREE/DIPLOMA COURSES PASSED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 17.11.2011 Resolved to approve all the Recommendations of the Board of Studies in P.G.Medical/Dental/AYUSH/AHS Degree/Diploma courses passed in its meeting held on 17.11.2011 with the following modification:
it was decided that,
(i) The theory and practical be treated as separate components and the failed component alone be repeated.
(ii) If the candidate fails in one theory paper he/she has to appear for all the theory papers;
(iii) If the candidate fails in any one part of any one component, the component (theory or practical) should be repeated;
(iv) In the marking pattern, for Log book also minimum of 50% is prescribed for a pass.
This system will come into effect from April 2012 Examination onwards.
(emphasis supplied)
12. From the perusal of the above decision made by the University, it is clear that the Component System has come into force with effect from April 2012 examination onwards and that a candidate who failed in one component has to repeat the said component alone and not to repeat both components, namely, theory and practical. It is also made clear therein that the theory and practical to be treated as separate component. The petitioner having been admitted to the three years course in the academic year 2011-2012, it is expected that the above said system of examination alone will be applied till the completion of her course. Needless to say that a person is entitled to legitimately expect that the system of examination prevailed at the time of his/her admission into the course will continue till the completion of the course. In other words, it cannot be permitted to be contend that the system of examination will change in the midstream of the course. To put it simply, if Component System of examination is made applicable to the students admitted in the first year of M.D.S course, such students cannot be expected to write under the Composite System in the second year or third year by changing the examination pattern, especially when two systems are totally with different pattern. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the third respondent college, the following comparative table between the two systems would show that there cannot be any change of the examination pattern in the middle of the course, as the two systems are definitely different and the students cannot be taken by surprise to switch over to another pattern of examination, which pattern was not in force at the time of commencing the course of that particular academic year.
S.No. Dental Council Regulation (Composite System) University Regulations (Component System) 1 All the Theory Papers (Papers ? I to IV) and the Practical Test (Clinical Vivo Voce) only in one sitting at the end of the Final Year One Theory Paper (Paper-I) at the end of the First Year and the remaining (Papers ? II to IV) at the end of the Final Year with Practical Tests (Clinical Viva Voce) 2 Paper ? IV : Essay Paper ? IV:
Recent Advances in Orthodontics 3 Maximum marks ; 75 for each Theory paper Maximum Marks : 100 for each Theory Paper 4 No Marks for Dissertation 100 Marks for Dissertation 5 'Composite System':
Candidates failing in any of the examinations (Theory or Practical) should repeat the whole examination and pass simultaneously 'Component System':
candidates failing in either of the components (Theory or Practical) should take only the failed component again and pass the same.
13. Further, in 44th meeting of the Standing Academic Board held on 15.06.2012, the stand taken in its 43rd meeting is repeated in agenda No.44(8) which reads as follows:-
? In the first appearance, the candidates should appear for both the Theory and Practical components together, Candidates failed in both Theory and Practical should appear for both the components together, Candidates passed in theory and failed in practical Examination should repeat the practical till he/she passes (to the maximum of double the duration of the course);
Candidates passed in practical Examination and failed in theory papers should repeat the failed theory papers till he/she passes (to the maximum of double the duration of the course) The viva Examination should be conducted with practical Examination and marks should be sent along with Practicals;
For the subject for which no University Practical Examination is prescribed, the viva can be conducted for theory and marks to be allotted;
14. Further, in the 46th meeting held on 17.07.2013 under agenda 46(15), the position is made very clear to the effect that M.D.S. examination following the norms of Dental Council of India would be made applicable for the students admitted from the academic year 2013-2014 onwards and that the existing University pattern for existing batch of students will continue.
Agenda 46(15) is extracted hereunder:-
?AGENDA NO;46(15) RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF STUDIES IN M.D.S. DEGREE COURSE HELD ON 17.06.2013 ******** Resolved to approve all the Recommendations of the Board of Studies in M.D.S. Degree course passed in its meeting held on 17.06.2013 and to conduct the M.D.S. Examination following the norms of the Dental Council of India including the attendance requirement from October 2013 session onwards.
Regarding the conduct of Examinations for the subject Basic Science, resolved to follow the existing University pattern for existing batch students and for the students admitted from the academic year 2013-14 onwards, the norms of the Dental Council of India be followed.?
15. Therefore, it is evident that change of pattern of examination from Component System to Composite System is intended to be applied for the students who were admitted from the academic year 2013-2014 onwards only and not in respect of students who were already admitted during the previous academic years. In this case, the petitioner was admitted in the academic year 2011-2012 and therefore, even as per the University's own resolution, the Composite System can be applied only in respect of students admitted from the academic year 2013-2014 onwards. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on minutes of the 47th meeting of the Standing Academic Board dated 18.12.2013 to contend that the petitioner has to take the examination under the Composite System only. A perusal of the minutes of the 47th meeting dated 18.12.2013 would show that the University decided to remove the Component System from the April 2014 examination session onwards for all the post graduate degree/diploma course.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 made more emphasis on the term ?from the April 2014 examination session onwards? referred to in 47th meeting resolution to contend that the petitioner having taken April 2014 examination, she has to come under the Composite System only. I fail to understand as to how such contention can be accepted especially when the first respondent University has made the position very clear in its 46th meeting as extracted and discussed supra. In fact, in my considered view, the minutes of the 47th meeting relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 only reiterate the stand taken by the University in its 46th meeting and it appears that there is no change in such decision. The relevant clause of the decision taken in 47th meeting reads as follows:-
?3. From the April 2014 Examination session onwards, for all the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma courses and super specially, it has been decided to remove the component system of appearing in the Examination following the norms of the respective councils.?
17. In my considered view, 47th meeting resolution is to be read along with 46th meeting resolution to find out as to what is the meaning of an ?examination session?.
18. In this case, the examination session referred to in the 47th meeting is to be construed and applied only in respect of students admitted in the academic year 2013-2014 onwards and not in respect of students admitted in the academic year 2011-2012 as in the case of the petitioner.
19. As the University itself has decided to follow the DCI norms commencing from the academic year 2013-2014 onwards in respect of students admitted in that academic year, there is no inconsistency, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, between DCI Regulation and University Regulation. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel in that aspect is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
20. One more vital aspect needs to be considered in this case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent college, if really the University wanted the petitioner to take the examination as per the Composite System, it should have asked the petitioner to write all the four theory papers in the third year including the paper in which the petitioner has already passed in the first year itself. It is not in dispute that as per the Composite System, all the examinations including theory, practical, clinical and viva voce have to be taken at the end of the third year. In this case, the petitioner was called upon to write only three theory papers, namely, papers 2 to 4 along with the failed practical test in October 2014 examination. Therefore, it is evident that the University itself is under utter confusion with regard to the applicability of the relevant System in the case of the petitioner. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and third respondent, the paper - IV in the Composite System is Essay, whereas paper - IV in the Component System is Recent Advances in Orthodontics. If the University wanted the petitioner to write the examination under the Composite System during October 2014 session, it ought not to have allowed the petitioner to write the paper - IV, namely, Recent Advances in Orthodontics and on the other hand, it ought to have directed the petitioner to write only Essay as Paper - IV. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has written the paper - IV in October 2014 examination only in Recent Advances in Orthodontics subject, which is evident in the mark sheet issued to her. Likewise the maximum marks for each theory papers also varies as found in the tabular column shown above.
21. 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 and 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.
22. Considering all these aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner having passed three theory examinations in April 2014, she has to be declared pass by applying the Component System, as she has passed in the clinical examination and viva voce in October 2014 examination. Accordingly, I find every justification in allowing the writ petition since the academic carrier of the student should not be spoiled solely on the unwarranted compulsion made out of unnecessary confusion by the University on the petitioner to rewrite the passed theoretical examination once again when she is otherwise not required to do so under the Component System. The University is to be blamed for all these confusions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to declare the petitioner as pass in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) Post Graduate Course. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent University, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.03.2015 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No skn To
1.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai ? 600 032, Rep. by its Registrar.
2.The Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai ? 600 032.
3.The Principal, Sri Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Padanilam, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District ? 629 161.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J skn Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19564 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 11.03.2015