Karnataka High Court
Dr K. R. Girish Rithvik vs The National Medical Council on 4 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 12175 OF 2023(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR K. R. GIRISH RITHVIK,
S/O K.R. CHOUDARY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT 24A SAMSKRUTI,
37TH A CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560082
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.S SUDHARSHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL,
POCKET -14, SECTOR - 8, DWARKA PHASE,
NEW DELHI - 110077, INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
KARNATAKA,
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. M.S. RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE,
DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY,
M S RAMAIAH NAGAR, MATHIKERE,
2
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560054
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND DEAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VK NOT FILED);
SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VK NOT FILED);
SRI.M.R.NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.SURAJ NAIK,
ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
ON THE PETITIONER DTD 17.04.2023 PRODUCED AS
ANNX-Q AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by a student who is pursuing his post-graduate course in Dermatology seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to consider the representation on the Petitioner dtd 17.04.2023 produced as Annx-Q.
2. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, that Petitioner has satisfied the 80% of attendance 3 requirement for each academic term in accordance with the extant law.
3. Such other order/direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs."
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner herein is pursuing his final year M.D. in Dermatology with respondent No.3-institution. Plaintiff claims that in August 2020 he met with an untoward mishap during his Golf training, wherein he sustained injury to his lower back, consequently leading to an Annular Tear to his L-3 and L-4. Petitioner claims that he was advised by the doctor to take one month complete rest and therefore, a representation was submitted by him on 5.9.2020 duly intimating the injury suffered by him to the Head of the Department of Respondent No.3-Institution. Petitioner in the said representation conveyed his inability as well as his immobility impeding his 4 attendance and therefore, requested to extend accommodation for a period of one month. Petitioner claims that inspite of injuries sustained by him, he has attended online classes for the period ranging between 1.9.2020 to 18.1.2021. After recovering from the injuries, the petitioner claims that he resumed his physical attendance w.e.f. 15.1.2021 and thereafter from February 2021 to the end of July, 2021, petitioner was assigned with Covid duty. Petitioner claims that during the first course of six months, the entire nation was under lockdown and the students were required to attend the classes only through online medium. Therefore, petitioner claims that his online attendance is ignored by respondent No.3-Institution ranging between 1.9.2020 to 18.1.2021 and therefore, respondent No.3 declined permission from taking up the ensuing final exams scheduled in July 2023. The petitioner also claims 5 that Respondent No.3-Institution has accepted the fees. Petitioner has submitted a representation and in the said representation he has clarified that he never skipped academic curriculum as he had attended all Online classes and therefore, has maintained 100% attendance. The captioned petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not uploading petitioner's application, on account of which, he reasonably apprehends that he may lose the entire academic year.
3. The respondent No.3-Institution on receipt of notice has tendered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections.
4. The learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would vehemently argue and contend that respondents' action in illegally restraining the petitioner's appearance in the ensuing 6 final examination is wholly arbitrary and unjust. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the petitioner has attended classes despite his lower back injury and therefore, has satisfied every academic requirement and as such, inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation has compelled the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court. He would vehemently argue and contend that on account of pandemic, all the wards were converted into Covid wards and therefore, the department of dermatology was virtually closed and therefore, he would contend that the petitioner had maintained more than 80% attendance and as such, he is entitled to take up the ensuing examination.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that if respondent No.3 is able to demonstrate that it had imparted training during the Covid period, his client is willing to withdraw the 7 petition. Reiterating the stand taken at the first instance, the learned Senior Counsel would again affirmatively state that since the department of Dermatology was closed in January 2020, respondent No.3 Institution cannot insist the petitioner to maintain 100% attendance and therefore, he would contend that petitioner having pursued the first six months' course had maintained more than 80% attendance and therefore, is entitled to take up ensuing examinations. He has also relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority .vs. Manoharlal and others1.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 while countering the grounds urged in the writ petition would however contend that the prayer sought in the instant petition seeking a 1 (2020) 8 SCC 129 8 mandamus against the respondents to consider the representation dated 17.04.2023 is wholly misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed in limine.
7. Referring to the statement of objections and the written submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that though the course commenced from 3.8.2020, petitioner reported only on 4.9.2020 and having missed out one month's study, the petitioner further did not attend the PG training programme for almost six months till the month of February 2021. Referring to the letter written by petitioner's father, he would contend that petitioner admits his absence from the course study. Reliance is placed on the letter written by the petitioner's father which is produced at Annexure-R to the statement of objections. Placing reliance on the attendance extracts of the Department of 9 Dermatology, the learned Senior Counsel would bring to the notice of this Court that petitioner in fact had zero attendance for a period of six months from the date of commencement of the course. While countering the claim of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Department of Dermatology was almost closed for six months, he has placed reliance on the attendance extracts of other students who have attended the training programme with full attendance. Reliance is placed on Annexures-R3 and R4 to the statement of objections. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that petitioner's claim that he has attended Online classes for few days does not make up for required attendance as indicated in amended clause 13(2) of Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000. The petitioner's claim that he was assigned Covid duty is also seriously contested and countered by the learned Senior Counsel and would 10 point that Covid duty was assigned to the petitioner in the second term of six months which commenced in March-April. Therefore, his complete absence for the first term cannot be dispensed and is bound to complete the course to acquire an eligibility to take up the examination. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that the period of training as indicated in clause 13(2) of Regulation 2000 (for short '2000 Regulations'), an amendment is brought where each academic year is substituted by wordings "academic term of six months" and therefore, his attendance in the second term cannot be counted, as petitioner had virtually missed his first six months' term. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the degree of M.D. in Dermatology can be conferred on Doctors who are fully qualified. The M.D. Dermatology students are required to attend on all days including general holidays, weekly holidays, Sundays' etc. 11 Learned Senior Counsel would seriously object to the grounds urged in the writ petition and would contend that the petitioner has mislead this Court in pleading that there was no practical training during covid period. Referring to the material on record, he would point out that Post-Graduates, interns and Final Year students were infact compelled to do rotation duties to manage Covid cases at respondent No.3-college and it was part of the students study and training. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University .vs. Dr. Anto Joseph and others2, Guru Nanak Dev University .vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another3, he would contend that the Courts cannot under the garb of judicial review dilute the requirements of the Medical Council of India and the University. He would contend that these requirements 2 1998(6) SCC 215 3 1993 (4) SCC 401 12 are laid down to ensure that the full period of training is necessary for acquiring the qualification completely and it is in the public interest that they are not likely deviated from. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and the shortage of attendance cannot be dispensed with and the petitioner lacks eligibility for having lost the first six month's term and as such, he is not entitled to take exams and hence, requests this court to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable.
8. Heard the learned Senior counsel and also counsel appearing for respondent-University and counsel appearing for first respondent-National Medical Council.
9. Before, I advert to the case on hand, it would be useful to refer to the letter written by the petitioner's father, which is placed on record by 13 respondent No.3-Institution. Annexure-R6 reads as under:
"Date: 6-4-2021 The Registrar- Acadamics, Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore.
Sri, My son Dr Girish Rithvik K. R. joined in D (Dermatology) during August 2020 under management category. Due to sports injury he had been on bed rest for several months, September 2020 to January 15th, 2021. Though he has not fully recovered from pain, with medication and physiotherapy, he has been attending to the college from 15th January 2021 onwards regularly. Apart from this he has been going through severe eye allergies for several years and has been on constant medication.
So I request you to exempt him from attending Covid duties, which he can not perform. We do not like to take any chance on his health and want his recovery fully.
Kindly oblige.
Thanking you, With regards, Sd/-
K.K.Choudary"14
On bare perusal of Annexure-R6, it is clearly evident that petitioner has virtually lost the academic term of six months. The attendance abstracts of department of Dermatology in the respondent No.3-Institution also depicts that petitioner had zero attendance for a period of six month from the date of commencement of the course. The amended clause 13(2) of Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000, clearly mandates that post graduate needs to work as 'Full Time Residents' during the period of training and shall maintain 80% attendance of the imparted training during each academic turn including assignments, assessed full time responsibilities and participation in all facets of the educational process. As per his own admission, if petitioner has missed the first academic term of six months on account of sports injury as indicated in Annxure-R6, he is not entitled to take ensuing exams 15 unless he completes the course. It is a trite that Medical Council Rules cannot be relaxed and the medical students pursuing P.G. Course are bound to complete and fulfill their academic requirements as laid down by the Apex Body i.e. MCI now known as National Medical Council. The regulations and the prescriptions indicated by the MCI cannot be modified. These regulations are formulated by the MCI and the same cannot be compromised. These regulations are framed as an integration of practical skills and knowledge gained through real-world experiences. These Rules are framed with a view to see that medical education can become more dynamic, responsive and better aligned with evolving means of patients and societies. The medical education is a rigorous process that requires a balance between clinical experience and didactic learning. The P.G. course often provides the doctors to skill their 16 knowledge to further enhance their knowledge and training. P.G. students undergoing training by discharging the duties as resident doctors can often lead to an opportunity of practical training and hands on experience. It can enhance their clinical skills and deepen their understanding of public health emergencies. The counter documents placed on record by respondent No.3-Institution clearly demonstrate that petitioner is guilty of not attending the first period of six months from the date of commencement of the course. Petitioner had a zero attendance. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.3, to maintain academic discipline and mandates of Regulations, petitioner is bound to undergo further training by extension of one term in view of his absence for a period of six months. Even if petitioner was assigned covid duty and if he had attended classes from 17 February 2021 to the end of July 2021, that does not satisfy the requirement indicated in amended clause 13.2 of 2000 Regulations, which mandates that students should at least maintain 80% attendance of an imparted training during each academic six months. The claim of petitioner that department of dermatology was virtually closed for six months is not substantiated and the same is effectively countered by respondent No.3-Institution by placing on record the Registrar indicating that PG students of the same batch in Dermatology department have attended the training with full attendance which is evident from Annexures-R3 and R4.
10. If Petitioner had suffered a sports injury and if he had a zero attendance for the first term of six months, petitioner has no legal right to seek mandamus at the hands of this Court. Respondent No.3-Institution equally is not legally bound to 18 consider the representation as petitioner has incurred shortage of attendance in terms of clause 13.2 of 2000 Regulations.
11. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i). The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
(ii). In the event, petitioner completes the course, it is needless to mention that he is entitled to take exams.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-