Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It was noted that the acronym "FT" referred to "Fail in Theory". However, the overall result of the petitioner, on the Certificate, was shown as "PASS". Further, on the notes/instructions contained on the reverse of the mark-sheet - which has not been filed by the petitioner, but was produced by Mr. Singhdev, learned Counsel for the Respondent 1 - it has been specifically noted that the grade 'E' indicated that the candidate had failed that paper. For the purposes of grading, the general instructions relating to the "Scheme of Examination and Pass Criteria" provides, in Clause 38(v), thus:

All State Medical Council as per list enclosed to take appropriate action in view of FMGE Pass certificate being REVOKED."

17. Aggrieved by the said communications, the petitioner, as already noted, instituted the present writ petition impleading NMC as Respondent 1 and NBEMS as Respondent 2.

Rival Contentions

18. I have heard Mr. Viraj Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Singhdev, learned Counsel for the NMC and Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Counsel for NBEMS at length. Written submissions have already been filed by the petitioner and by the NBEMS.

Submissions of Mr. Singhdev by way of response

20. Mr. Singhdev submits that the petitioner is entitled to no relief and in this context, advanced the following contentions:

(i) The petitioner had left for Russia even before the Eligibility Certificate was issued on 19 February 2014. This itself was irregular, as admittedly, the obtaining of an Eligibility Certificate was a pre-condition before starting the course abroad. It was not open, therefore, for the petitioner to plead equity on the ground that he had undertaken an MBBS course in Russia.

22. Mr. Singhdev also sought to distinguish the authorities on which the petitioner places reliance.

Submissions of Mr. Kadam in rejoinder

23. Mr. Viraj Kadam, in his rejoinder, sought to distinguish the judgments on which Mr. Singhdev had placed reliance. Rohinish Pathak, he submits, is a case in which the request for grant of an Eligibility Certificate was rejected thrice. Other decisions either (2017) 4 SCC 1 (2017) 8 SCC 670 (2002) 3 SCC 696 related to manifest fraud, such as the Vyapam scam in Madhya Pradesh or of deviation from the centralized admission process.