Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prashant Deep Chitoshiya vs Dr. Sarvepalli, Radhakrishna ... on 26 September, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:31465]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9123/2023

Prashant Deep Chitoshiya S/o Balindu Deep Chitosiya, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 17, Bandikui, District
Dausa (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Dr.    Sarvepalli,      Radhakrishna            Rajasthan      Ayurvedic
         University University College Of Ayurved, (Dr. S.r.a.u.)
         University College Of Ayurved, Karwad, Jodhpur, Through
         Its Registrar.
2.       Controller Of Examination, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishna
         Rajasthan Ayurvedic University University College Of
         Ayurved, Karwad, Jodhpur.
3.       Punjab Ayurvedic Medical College And Hospital, Sri
         Ganganagar Through Its Principal.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Nitin Goklani
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Suniel Purohit



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment Reserved on 21/09/2023 Pronounced on 26/09/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"1. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed.
2. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent-University may be directed to open the online examination portal for the petitioner so that he may fill up examination form.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31465] (2 of 8) [CW-9123/2023]
3. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction or alternatively, the respondent University may kindly be directed to accept the petitioner's off-line application form.
4. That any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued.
5. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner."

2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner was enrolled with the respondent-College for pursuing the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course (B.A.M.S.) in the year 2012. The Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986, which govern the Course in question, were amended vide the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 2016'), as notified in the Gazette of India : Extraordinary, dated 07.11.2016; and thereafter on 16.02.2022, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 2022'), were notified in the Gazette of India : Extraordinary.

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the B.A.M.S. First Year Professional Examination in December 2012 and cleared the same in the year 2017; then Second Year Professional Examination in the year 2021; and Third/Final Year Professional Examination in 2022, except in one Subject i.e. Prasuti Tantra & Strirog. The petitioner wished to fill the form for the examinations to be held in (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (3 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] July, 2023 however, the online exam portal for filling up examination form did not open for the petitioner and the last date for submission was 22.06.2023 (with late fee by 04.07.2023) as per the office order dated 31.05.2023; the same was on count of Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 2016 and Regulation 11 of the Regulations of 2022; relevant portions of the said Regulation 6 and Regulation 11 are reproduced as hereunder:

"6. Scheme of examination.-
(4)(e) To become eligible for joining the compulsory internship programme, all four professional examinations shall be passed within a period of maximum nine years including all chances as mentioned above."
"11. Examination.-
(e) To become eligible for joining the Compulsory Rotatory Internship programme, all three professional examinations shall be passed and qualified in nine electives within a period of maximum ten years from the date of admission."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken admission in the respondent-College in the year 2012, and thus, the Regulations, i.e. the Regulations of 1986 along with amendment of 2010, so prevalent in the year 2012 should have been applicable on him, whereby there were neither any limits on the number of attempts nor any prescribed period within which a student had to pass all the Subjects of B.A.M.S. IIIrd Professional Year Examination.

3.1. It was further submitted that since petitioner's admission in 2012, the Regulations had been amended and the new regulations (Regulations of 2022) were made applicable on him, thus, on the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (4 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] ground of having availed the maximum number of attempts, the petitioner was precluded from appearing in the examination. 3.2. It was further submitted that the petitioner had passed all the Subjects, except one, and had also been permitted to undertake the B.A.M.S. Examination to be conducted in July, 2023 vide letter dated 25.03.2023 of the Controller of Examinations, yet the online portal did not open for the petitioner. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5679/2020, decided, alongwith connected matters, on 30.07.2020).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that a bare perusal of the Regulations of 2016, in particular Regulations 6 (e) thereof, it is apparent that a student would become eligible for joining compulsory internship program after passing all professional examinations within a period of maximum 9 years including all the chances mentioned in the Regulation of 2016.

4.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the applicability of the Regulations of 2016 had already been dealt with in the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Govind Soni v. Registrar, Dr. SRA University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7789/2019, decided on 11.09.2019). (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (5 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] 4.2. It was also submitted that in pursuance of the directions given in the judgments rendered in Govind Soni (supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra), by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court, a letter dated 05.09.2020 was issued by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, wherein it was stated that the amended Regulations of 2016 would be applicable on all students of the Course in question.

4.3. In furtherance, it was submitted that the Regulations of 2022 are in vogue and as per Regulation 11 (e) thereof, to join compulsory rotatory internship programme, a student had to pass all the professional examinations and qualified in 9 electives within a period of maximum ten years from the date of admission. 4.4. It was further submitted that applicability with regard to Regulations of 2022 was settled in the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sahil Bangra & Ors. v. Dr. Savepalli Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8767/2023, decided on 07.07.2023), and in accordance with the same, the amended Regulations were to apply on students who were currently undergoing the course as regular students.

4.5. It was also submitted that the petitioner was declared failed in the examination conducted in the month of February-March 2023 and reliance had been placed upon the letter dated 25.05.2023 of the Controller of Examination wherein the petitioner was permitted to undertake the examination which was scheduled to be held in the month of July, 2023; however, the same had (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (6 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] been Subject to the petitioner being eligible under the relevant Regulations.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner took admission in the year 2012 in the respondent-College to pursue the Course in question and cleared his First and Second Year Professional Examinations, and gave his Third/Final Year Professional Examination, 2022 however failed in the aforesaid Subject, and thus, was barred from giving an attempt for the said Subject in the July 2023 examination by virtue of the amended Regulations, governing the said Course.

7. This Court further observes that as per the judgments rendered in the cases of Govind Soni (supra) and Sahil Bangra & Ors. (supra), the amended regulations would be applicable on the students who though were admitted prior to such amendments however have not passed out as of yet. The relevant portions of the said judgments are reproduced as hereunder:

Govind Soni (supra):
"6. Indisputably, the Regulations governing education in Indian Medicine framed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine with the previous sanction of the Central Government, stands amended vide Amendment Regulations, 2016 and the Regulation putting restriction on appearance of the students pursuing B.A.M.S. Course in Final Professional Examination unless they have passed First, Second and Third Year Professional Examinations does not survive, and thus, the scheme of the Examination as provided for under Regulation 6 of Amendment Regulations, 2016, shall operate even for the students who though admitted prior to (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (7 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] Amendment Regulations, 2016 coming into force but have not passed out the course as yet. Merely because, the petitioner was admitted to the course prior to coming into force of the Amendment Regulations, 2016, the benefit of the provision incorporated therein, which permits him to appear in Final Professional Examination even before passing the Third Professional Examination, cannot be denied to him."

Sahil Bangra (supra):

"9.2. The 2022 amended Regulations cannot be made applicable on the students, who are not currently undergoing the Course, or whose admission has already been terminated, or whose Degree has already been denied, or whose case no more survives; but since the petitioners are the students of the currently ongoing Course and pursuing their Degree Course as regular students, therefore, the prospective application of the Regulations will help the present petitioners, and therefore, on count of number of attempts, they will not be denied the chance to appear in the examination. However, the candidates will be ineligible for internship as per the aforementioned clause of maximum ten years, which has been inserted in the Regulations of 2022."

8. This Court also observes that the petitioner had failed in the aforesaid Subject during the Third/Final Year Professional Examination, 2022, on count of the fact that he was caught using unfair means during the examination; however subsequently, while cancelling the attempt of 2022, he was allowed to undertake the attempt of the said Subject in the examination period of July- August 2023, the same being subject to the prevalent Regulations and since the Regulations of 2022 were in place at that time, thus accordingly, the petitioner could no longer be allowed to give further attempts, as by that time, the maximum prescribed time (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31465] (8 of 8) [CW-9123/2023] period of 10 years was already over, as per the Regulations of 2022.

9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.

10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:35:40 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)