Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

% 04.03.2020

1. Mr. Rupal and Mr. T. Singhdev have returned with instructions.

2. To be noted, Mr. Rupal appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2/University of Delhi (in short "UOD") while Mr. Singhdev appears on behalf of respondent no. 3/The Medical Council of India (in short "MCI").

3. Both counsels concede that the marks obtained in the concerned subject by the petitioner in the captioned matter will have to be re-evaluated in the light of the following judgment: Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 201. It is further submitted by counsel that if marks are re-evaluated as per the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner would have to be declared passed.

4. For the purpose of convenience, Mr. Singhdev has placed before me a chart setting out the particulars of the petitioner and the relevant subject in W.P.(C) 2483/2020 page 1 of 2 which she has been declared failed and the reason as to why she has come to such a pass.

5. The details given by Mr. Singhdev are set up hereafter:-

Third Professional M.B.B.S. Examination, 2019 S.No Subject in Particulars Reason which the petitioner has failed