Kerala High Court
Dr.Deepthi S vs Director Of Medical Education on 20 June, 2012
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/26TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 14649 of 2012 (E)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DR.DEEPTHI S.,
3RD YEAR STUDENT,D.M.NEUROLOGY,MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
SRI.S.RAMESH
SRI.NAVEEN.T
SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOTTAYAM-686001.
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,ATHIRAMPUZHA
KOTTAYAM-686562.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-
12-2012, THE COURT ON 17.12.2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 14649/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS.:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE VICE
PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 4.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.19.5.2012 SENT BY THE HEAD OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI
DAILY DATED 20.6.2012.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.6.2012 FOR D.M.NEUROLOGY
EXAMINATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
RESPONDENTS EXTS.(2ND RESPONDENT):
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
RESPONDENTS EXTS.(3RD RESPONDENT):
EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1777/2012/MCK DT. 21.6.2012 OF
PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM.
srd
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 14649 of 2012
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
The main prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the third respondent to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination in D.M. Neurology to be held from 11/7/2012 onwards after accepting Ext.P5 application and for an order declaring that the petitioner is eligible to sit for the D.M. Neurology examination to be conducted from 11/7/2012.
2. By interim order dated 25.6.2012 this Court directed the second respondent to forward the application of the petitioner to the third respondent University, for enabling the petitioner to appear for the final year D.M. Neurology examination, to be held from 11.7.2012. It was directed that the above arrangement will be provisional and subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has undertaken the examination and presently, in I.A. No.14649/2012, she seeks for a direction to publish the results.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri C.P. Sudhakra Prasad, appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the University, Shri Varghese M. Easo.
WPC.14649/12 - 2-
4. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner was admitted to D.M. Neurology course in Medical College, Kottayam on 1.8.2009. She was granted maternity leave for 120 days from 1.8.2009 to 28.11.2009 by Ext.P1 order passed by the Vice Principal of the College. It was with a condition that she will be given stipend and she should have to undergo extension for 120 days. The leave was further extended for 30 days by Ext.P2 order of the second respondent on condition that she will not be eligible for stipend during the period of extension granted and have to undergo extension for 30 days more in addition to the 120 days. She rejoined duty on 29.12.2009 and continued to attend her studies. The petitioner points out that going by clause 10 of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 the period of training will be three years including the examination period. Clause 13.3 of the regulations will show that grant of leave to Post Graduate students shall be regulated as per the respective State Government rules. The practice hither to was that the Post Graduate students will be allowed to attend the final year examination and will be given extension for the period during which maternity leave was taken. Ext.P3 is the communication by the Head of the Department which will show that the petitioner has the required attendance of more than 80%.
WPC.14649/12 - 3- Ext.P4 is the notification published by the University regarding the date of examination. But later, alleging that the Principal is not forwarding the application of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that along with the petitioner, one Dr. Soumya C.V. was admitted to D.M. Neurology course by the first respondent in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram who had also availed maternity leave on similar terms and the same was granted similarly. She was allowed to appear for the examination and therefore the petitioner cannot be discriminated.
6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that when maternity leave is sanctioned, the Government gives stipend for the period and for the said period the candidates undergoing D.M. Course are asked to have training period extended for that period. The petitioner, on the whole has obtained more than 80% attendance also and therefore is eligible to sit for the examination as confirmed by the communication of the Head of the Department produced as Ext.P3. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that as the period of training for D.M. Course is three years including examination period, the petitioner was eligible to attend the examination.
7. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is further pointed out WPC.14649/12 - 4- that Regulations 13.2 and 13.3 of the Regulations have been amended. In regulation 13.2 instead of the words "calender year" it has been replaced by the words "academic year". It is further pointed out in para 4 of the reply affidavit that the affidavit of the Principal of the College will show that the required attendance was obtained by the petitioner. It is also stated that the only additional requirement is that the petitioner should attend the course till 28.12.2012 which is the condition on which she was allowed to continue the course of study. The petitioner undertakes that she will attend the course till 28.12.2012 even if the examination results are declared earlier.
8. The duration of the course and the details are given in para 5 of the counter affidavit of the Principal. The period of study for the three years are as shown below:
1. 29.12.2009 - 28.12.2010 - 1st year
2. 29.12.2010 - 28.12.2011 - 2nd year
3. 29.12.2011 - 28.12.2012 - 3rd year In para 6 it is further stated that on 21.6.2012 the petitioner has not acquired 80% attendance. It was the reason for not forwarding the application. But she has obtained more than 80% attendance when the whole period of course is taken and so it was decided to forward the WPC.14649/12 - 5-
application with the said remarks.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is stated that Ext.P6 hall ticket was issued to the petitioner in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in the interim order.
10. The maternity leave granted as per Ext.P1 is with a condition that the petitioner will have to undergo extension for 120 days. She was eligible for stipend for the said period. The extension granted as per Ext.P2 also will show that the petitioner will have to undergo extension for 30 days more in addition to the 120 days. The relevant clause, viz. clause 10 (2) will show that the period of training for obtaining D.M. shall be three years including examination period. Clause 13.3 will show that the matter of grant of leave to P.G. Students shall be regulated as per the respective State Government rules. Therefore, what is required is to grant extension of the period during the maternity leave was taken. Since the three year period includes examination period, there was no impediment for the petitioner to participate and attend the examination. Going by the affidavit of the Principal, the petitioner had obtained more than 80% attendance when the whole period of course is taken. Therefore, there is no difficulty in that regard also. Therefore, merely because the petitioner had taken maternity leave for 120 days initially, she cannot be denied the right to WPC.14649/12 - 6- attend the examination.
11. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has clearly stated that she will attend the course till 28.12.2012 even if the examination results are announced.
12. It is declared that the petitioner is eligible to appear for the D.M. Neurology examination. Hence, there will be a direction to publish the results of the petitioner and the petitioner will continue the course of study till 28.12.2012. The results will be published within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/