Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr. T. Singhdev, appearing for the MCI contended, firstly, that the present petition was vitiated by delay and laches of a nature which disentitled the petitioner to any discretionary relief. He raised a second preliminary point, viz. that the petitioner had, in his second application for an eligibility certificate, misrepresented that he had secured 50% in PCB. Although he had accurately stated his marks in each of the three subjects, in the column headed "% Result Pass/Fail" he had entered "50%" against "PCB Total". On merits, Mr.Singhdev submitted that the petitioner had not obtained the eligibility certificate prior to his departure for China, as required under the ERR, and that in any event, in the absence of any enabling provision in the Act or Regulation, the principle of rounding off was not available to cases such as the petitioner's. He cited several decisions in this regard (to which we shall refer presently), and the judgment of this Court in Shahul Hameed K.S. vs. MCI 2018 (172) DRJ 385 ((2018) SCC OnLine (Del) 11528) to argue that the Regulations framed by the MCI call for strict adherence. He urged the Court not to countenance any departure from the requirements thereof.

9. The GMER, by virtue of Regulation 5, prescribes various criteria for selection of students for MBBS courses in India. The criteria mentioned in Regulation 5 are relatable to the several qualifying examinations as enumerated in the various clauses of Regulation 4(2). Common to all the options is the requirement of a minimum average of 50% marks in PCB in the qualifying examination mentioned in Regulation 4(2).

10. Mr. Singhdev has also referred us to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shahul Hameed K.S. (supra) where this Court inter alia considered the STR and the GMER and uphled the requirements thereof which also now incorporate the requirements of the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) for overseas qualified doctors to be enrolled under MCI/SMCs.

14. Mr. Singhdev has cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that rounding off cannot be applied in respect of percentage of marks stipulated in eligibility conditions for admission to professional colleges. These include Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. vs Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 108, Bhanu Pratap vs. State of Haryana (2011) 15 SCC 304, Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Banglore vs G. Hemlatha & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 568 and West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board & Ors. vs. Sarit Chakraborty (2015) 13 SCC

E. Preliminary submissions

25. Although we have considered the petitioner's case on merits keeping in mind the nature of the relief sought, two preliminary points urged by Mr.Singhdev also deserve consideration. The first argument is that the petitioner was originally denied an eligibility certificate on 15.04.2006 but has approached the Court only on 26.05.2015 i.e. more than 9 years thereafter. We agree that such considerable delay, particularly in a matter which is of evident significance to the petitioner's career, cannot be overlooked. Having proceeded to pursue his course in China without obtaining the eligibility certificate as required under the ERR prior to taking admission, the petitioner bore the risk of the situation which he now faces.