http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. ANTO JOSEPH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/07/1998

BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA, J.      The order  under challenge  was passed  upon  the  writ petition  of   the  first   respondent  in   the   following circumstances. On  12th October,  1993 the  first respondent joined the  M.D. course  in  Anaesthesia  of  the  appellant University. The  examination  for  that  course  was  to  be conducted on  27.9.96. The  first respondent  having  fallen short of the minimum training period requirement, applied to the University for an exemption. The application having been turned down,  the first respondent moved a writ petition for writ directing  the University to allow him to appear at the examination. On  21.8.96 the  High Court  passed an  interim order on  the writ  petition directing  the  University  "to admit  the   petitioner  to  the  examination  provisionally subject to  the final decision of this Court." When the writ petition reached  hearing, this  is the  order that the High Court passed:      "Heard counsel  appearing on either      side.           Petitioner     joined     Post      Graduate degree course, namely M.D.      Anaesthesia  on  11.10.1993.  Final      examination started  on  27.9.1996.      By virtue  of an  interim order  of      this   court,    he    took    that      examination.  The   short  question      that arises  for  consideration  is      whether   the    result   of    the      examination is to be directed to be      published or not.           On  the   peculiar  facts  and      circumstances of  this case,  since      he has  undergone course for nearly      three years except for few days and      also secured  more than 80 per cent      of the attendance in the course, we      do find  any justification  for not      declaring   the   result   of   the      examination taken by him.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

         Under the above circumstances,      not to  be treated  as a precedent,      we direct the University to declare      the result of the examination taken      by the  petitioner. In  case he has      come out successful, the University      is directed  to confer  on him  the      Master’s degree.           Writ petition  is disposed  of      in the above terms."      At an  interim stage this Court stayed the operation of the aforequoted order. consequently, the result of the first respondent has not been declared.      Learned counsel  for the  University drew our attention to the  requirements of  the Medical  Council of  India with regard to the period of training. The read thus:      "MD/MS           From the  year  1993  onwards,      the minimum  period of training for      obtaining these  degrees  shall  be      three  calendar   years   and   the      candidates can  be admitted to this      training    after     their    full      registration   with   the   Medical      Council(s).           No exemption  shall  be  given      from this  period of  training of 3      years either for doing Housemanship      or  for  any  other  experience  or      diploma."      In its  Prospectus the  University  had  said  this  in relation to the duration of the course:           "Duration of  Course: Duration      of MD/MS  course will  be of  three      years and  that of  various diploma      courses will  be of two years. This      is obligatory  on the  part of  the      Institutions  covered   under   the      scheme to  have  three  years  P.G.      Degree course  and two  years  P.G.      Diploma course  from  the  Academic      Session 1993,  as per  the  Hon’ble      Supreme Court  judgment. There will      be no relaxation in the duration of      the course of a study on any ground      and on  the ground  of having  done      house job or any other professional      experience including  experience in      respect of HCMS doctors.           It  should  be  clearly  under      stood  that   no  student  (who  is      admitted)  shall   be  eligible  to      appear in  the  examination  before      actually completing  the prescribed      period of  course  (s).  Those  who      will be  admitted under exceptional      circumstances after  30  days  from      the start  of the  course shall  be      eligible to  appear only  in one of      the subsequent  examination and not      with the regular batch."      Learned counsel  for the  appellant submitted  that the first respondent  joined the  course 15 days late and he had taken leave  for 42  days  so  that  he  was  short  of  the requirement of  three years  training by  57  days.  Learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

counsel submitted that, having regard to the Medical Counsel of India’s  requirements and  the  University’s  Prospectus, there was  no justification  for the interim order which had been passed  by the High Court or for the final order, whose only basis  was the  interim order.  learned counsel pointed out that  the leave  that had  been sanctioned  to the first respondent had  been sanctioned  expressly on the basis that the first  respondent would  have  to  repeat  the  training before appearing  in the  final examination. Learned counsel submitted that  although the  order under  challenge  stated that it  was not  to be  treated as  a precedent, there were many matters  of students in the same situation who had been granted the  same  relief  based  upon  the  judgment  under challenge and  that had been done not only by the High Court but also be courts subordinate thereto.      Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the fact  that the first respondent had joined the course 15 days short  should not  be taken  into account. He submitted that the  University had the power to grant an exemption for a period  of 30  days and this should be taken into account. For the  purposes of  argument we  will accept all this. The question still  is in relation to the 12 days that the first respondent fell  short of.  Learned counsel  submitted  that first respondent  had now  completed the  period of  3 years training, though subsequent to the examination.      We might  not have interfered has this been an isolated case but  we find  from reading  the orders  which have been placed on  the record  that though the impugned order stated that it  was not  to be  treated as  a precedent it has been followed repeatedly  by the  High Court and by courts below. It appears  then that it is necessary to interfere to uphold the sanctity  of the  requirements of the Medical Council of India and  the University.  These requirements are laid down to ensure  that the  full period  of training  necessary for acquiring the  qualification is  completed and  it is in the public interest that they are not lightly deviated from.      The University  was  not  obliged  to  give  the  first respondent exemption  for 30  days absence because the leave it gave  the first  respondent contemplated  a full training period by  having to  repeat it.  The first  respondent fell short of  the required  training period at least by 42 days. He must, therefore, appear and pass the next examination.      The appeal  is allowed.  The judgment  and order  under appeal is  set aside.  The writ  petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed.      No order as to costs.