Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.1. It is the main contention of Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by referring to the relevant portion of the MCI Regulations, 1997 wherein the Regulation in respect of grant of grace marks only uses the words "a student who failed only in one subject", that the same is without any discrimination between the practical and theory papers and according to him, this being a benevolent provision of the MCI Regulations, 1997, it must be made applicable to both the cases of theory examinations and practical examinations. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned portion of the resolution of the first respondent/University while re-introducing the awarding of grace marks but restricting the same only to theory examinations is arbitrary and illegal.

11.3. That apart, it is his submission that the discretion cannot be expected to be exercised compulsorily unless arbitrariness is shown. It is submitted that in respect of practical/clinical papers in all fields it was unanimously resolved not to extend grace marks and therefore, there is no arbitrariness.

11.4. He would submit that a person belonging to medical profession is expected to be practically proficient and grace marks cannot be liberally awarded by diluting the professional skill. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Amit and another, [2002] 6 SCC 153.