Kerala High Court
Aneesh.P.M vs Kerala University Of Health Sciences on 27 September, 2018
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 5TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 14499 of 2016
PETITIONER/S:
1 ANEESH.P.M
PARAMBILKUDY HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM,VENGOLA P.O.,
PATTIMATTAM,RERNAKULAM.
2 ANU BABY
602, MOOLEKUDY,MANAKKAPPADY,IRINGOLE P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM.
3 ANJANA J.B.
NJARAKKAVILA HOUSE, TC 2/3376,SCT NAGAR,
CHALAKKUZHY ROAD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 RAHUL UNNI T.G
THARAPPEL (H), BEHIND CO OPERATIVE SUPER MARKET,
MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR.
5 VINOTH KUMAR T.
THIRAVIAM, NULLATHANNI ESTATE, NADAYAR NORTH
DIVISION, MUNNAR,RIDUKKI.
6 BINITHA U
PADINJARILLAM, NATTIKA, NATTIKA BEACH,
CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR.
7 HARITA KRISHNAN,
MANAKALPARAMBIL, KARUMALA, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR.
8 SUNITHA P.
POTTEKKAT,MOOKKUTHALA,NANNAMMUKU PANCHAYAT,679574.
9 SHARMATI M.
40-A MIRANDA LINE,IST STREET C2/C2 SCHEME ROAD,
G.H. ROAD,THENI.
10 KARTHIKA S.
DHANWANTHARIS,SHIVANANDHA NILAYAM, MANISHERI P.O.,
OTTAPPALAM.
W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 2
11 SUMISHA K.
KOVINGAL, MULAYANKAVU P.O., KULUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD.
12 UMADEVI
ANTIMANGALATHU MANA,IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR.
13 SUDHEESH P.R.
UDAYAM HOUSE,VETTIKKATTIRI,CHERUTHURUTHY,THRISSUR.
14 RAHUL K. BAJI
KOOTTALA HOUSE,KOORKKENJERY,THRISSUR.
15 ARJUN K.S.
KURUVANCHERY,KANJAMANA,VALLIKKAPATTA P.O.,
KOOTTILANGADI,MALAPPURAM.
16 ROSHITH RAJ
PARATTUPARAMBIL H, NARAYANAMANGALAM P.O., PULLUT,
KODUNGALLOOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.MANU
SMT.PRIYANKA VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU,
THRISSUR,PIN:680596.
2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN:680596.
3 THE PRINCIPAL
NANGELIL AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM.
4 THE PRINCIPAL
PNNM AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, SHORANUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY. OF HEALTH SCIENCES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.09.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).No.7796 of 2017 & CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 3
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) Nos.14499 of 2016, 7796, 7813,
7820, 9388, 9407, 10591, 10787, 27131,
27384, 28030, 29127, 29189, 29267,
29788, 30342, 30465, 31342, 31343,
33839 of 2017 & 6062, 9042, 25967,
26060, 26099, 26124, 26169, 27650,
27713, 27962, 28033, 28084, 28085,
28308, 28318, 28321, 28325, 28329,
28330, 28337, 28671, 28729, 29079,
29218, 29238, 29318, 29325, 29326,
29327, 29636, 29638 & 31031 of 2018
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2018
J U D G M E N T
In all these writ petitions, Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) students of different colleges affiliated with the Kerala University of Health Sciences were confronted with the situation of not allowing them to write the examination for the reason that they have not cleared the previous examination before appearing for the next higher examination. The petitioners were registered with the University during W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 4 the year 2012-2015. Admittedly, as per the 2012 Regulations, such students will have to pass the previous examination before appearing for the next higher examination. There was change in the 2016 Regulations by which the failed students of the previous provisional examination can appear for the next higher examination and maximum four chances will be given to pass every paper. These students would submit that there is no such embargo to clear the examination within the maximum period of three years while they were enrolled as students to register with the University. However, they also admit that as per the 2012 Regulations, they cannot appear for the higher examination without clearing the previous examination. It appears that the petitioners want both the Regulations to be adopted to allow them to continue the course and the only objection for them is in regard to the maximum chance as well as the maximum period for clearing the examination as provided in the 2016 Regulations.
2. By interim orders of this Court, the petitioners were allowed to appear for the examination and some of the results have also been published. This Court is of the view that, in the particular circumstance of the case, without adverting to the impact of the Regulations, the W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 5 University shall bestow two chances to such students to complete the previous years' examination as a one time measure and it cannot be extended in future. The University is free to insist upon Regulations for future. However, this order is issued particularly taking note of the fact that these students were enrolled from 2012 onwards. These directions are issued irrespective of the chances already availed by them.
3. The next point to be considered is whether the petitioners can be permitted to appear for the final examination without clearing the previous examination. There is apparent difference in the Regulations formulated by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and the University. It is appropriate to refer both the Regulations. CCIM Regulation 6(3)(c) reads as follows:
"The failed student of third professional who have passed all the subjects of first and second professional examinations shall be allowed to appear in final professional examination and maximum four chances shall be given to pass third professional examination within a period of maximum three years".
The University Regulation 1.18(d) stipulates as follows:
"1.18(d).- The student shall pass all subjects of the previous years before registering for final year examination".W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 6
4. As per the CCIM Regulations, such students can appear for the final examination without clearing the previous examination. However, as per the University Regulations, such students cannot appear for the final examination without clearing the previous examination. The question of repugnancy will have to be decided with respect to the nature of the power exercised by the CCIM and the University.
5. If it is possible to reconcile both the Regulations, to uphold higher standards of education, the court has to avoid conflict between such Regulations. It is only when the provisions are repugnant, the court can declare such provisions of the State authorities as void. Therefore, exercise has to be made out in what possible manner both the Regulations can be reconciled. The very object of the stipulation in the University Regulations that the students shall not appear for the final examination is obviously with a purpose to disallow such candidates to practice Ayurveda medicine on the strength of declaration of results of the final year. It is to be noted that internship will commence only after the final year examination. Therefore, it may result in misuse of such certificate obtained in the final degree examination by such candidates. On the other hand, CCIM Regulations allow such students to appear for W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 7 the final examination.
6. This Court is of the view that the Regulations of the University can be safeguarded by allowing the students to write the final examination without clearing the previous examination. However, the University need not release such results unless the students clear the previous examinations. This is the possible reconciliation between the two Regulations to maintain higher standard and the purpose for which such Regulation is formulated by the University. Therefore, the University can permit such students to appear for the final year provisional examination without clearing the previous examination and the University need to publish such results only along with the clearing of the previous examination. This would be more practical and convenient for the University as well, otherwise the University has to keep hold on such examination which may result in unforeseen consequences as well. If that be so, in the light of the CCIM Regulations, the students may be permitted to appear for the examination on condition that the results will not be declared without clearing the previous year examination.
7. In that view of the matter, I need not declare the Regulations prescribed by the University as void.
W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 8
Therefore, in tune with the above directions, the results of the petitioners shall be published.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 & conn. cases 9 APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.14499/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGULTION ISSUED BY THE CCIM.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGULATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2015.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED REGULATIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY SOME OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.S to Judge smp