Judgment:
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent university from retrospectively applying the regulation dated 02.07.2014 regarding examinations for Super Speciality Medical Courses (2012-2015) to the petitioner who obtained admission for Super Speciality Medical Course, under the respondent's regulations of the academic year 2012-13 and permit the petitioner to appear only in the failed papers (Practicals for super speciality course) in accordance with the examination regulations published by the respondent university during the academic year 2012-13 while admitting the petitioner.
The petitioner after passing M.B.B.S., joined M.D.(Paediatrics) and he also passed the said course. Based on his M.D.(Paed) qualification, he was admitted to D.M.(Paed) during 2012-2013 in the Madurai Medical College, which is affiliated to the first respondent university. The duration of the said course is three years, i.e. he would complete the course in 2014-2015.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner shall appear for the final year examination for four theory papers and four practical examinations. Accordingly, he appeared for those examinations in August 2015. He was successful in all the theory papers. However, he failed in practical examinations.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pattern of examination as per the University regulations that was in vogue during 2012-2013 provides for reappearing only in the failed stream i.e. if the student has passed in theory papers and failed in practical examinations, it is sufficient for him to appear for practical examinations alone. Likewise, if he passed in practical examinations and failed in theory papers, it is sufficient for him to appear for theory papers alone. However, the said pattern of examination was changed and the University has followed a new pattern of examination, which provides for reappearing in both the streams, even if the student failed in one of the streams.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he is governed by the old pattern of examination that was in existence at the time when he joined the course in 2013-2014, he need not reappear for theory examinations, since he passed in theory examinations and he failed only in practical examinations.
5. According to the petitioner, the University has insisted him to appear for theory papers again and hence, he filed this writ petition seeking to forbear the first respondent from applying the new pattern of examination that came into force with effect from 2013-2014 to the students, who were admitted to the D.M.course prior to 2013-2014 academic year. According to the petitioner, since he joined in 2012-2013, he is only governed by the old pattern of examination.
6. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents refuting the allegations. They sought to argue that the new pattern of examination would also govern the students, who joined even prior to the academic year 2013-2014.
7. The learned counsel for the University has vehemently contended that the petitioner shall appear for theory papers also as per the new pattern of examination and he could not insist that as per the old pattern of examination, it is sufficient for him to appear only for the practical examinations.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner joined D.M. course in 2012-2013, he is governed by the old pattern of examinations as per the old regulations followed by the university and the new regulation that was introduced in 2013-2014 could not be applied to the petitioner, who joined in 2012-2013.
He has relied on the following judgments in this regard:
1. Poovizhi, Minor Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu - (2002) 1 M.L.J. 590
2. B.Supriya V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2014(1) CWC 497
3. Anjana S. Nair Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University - 2015(2) CWC 411?
9. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
10. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, it is well settled that the students are governed by the system of examination that was in vogue when they were admitted and not by the new pattern that was introduced later. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgments relied on by him are directly on this point. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the judgment in Poovizhi, Minor Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu - (2002) 1 M.L.J. 590:
13........ The doctrine of legitimate expectation invoked in the said case has been extended by the Full Bench and the action of the Government was set at naught. We are of the considered view that the Full Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Tamil and English Medium School Association case is applicable to the extent of setting at naught the impugned G.O. in so far as the retrospective operation is concerned, as by the said sudden policy, the interest of the students are jeopardised for the reasons stated in paragraph 12 above.
14. In the circumstances, we hold that G.O.Ms.No.142, School Education Department, dated 12.09.2001, shall be operative only prospectively and for such students, who re-appear for improvement examination in the Higher Secondary course from the academic year 2002-2003 onwards and not for the examinees of September 2001 and March, 2002. The results of the September 2001 improvement examinations shall be declared forthwith. The students, who want to re-appear for improvement in the examinations to be held in March, 2002, shall be entitled to remit their fees for the subjects of their choice by 15.02.2002, and subject to compliance of the payment of fees prescribed, the respondents shall permit the said students to write improvement examination in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1457, dated 07.10.1989. It is made clear that G.O.Ms.No.142, School Education Department, dated 12.09.2001 shall come into effect for the improvement examinations from September, 2002 onwards. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, W.A.M.Ps. and W.P.M.Ps. are closed. ?
11. The relevant portion in B.Supriya V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2014(1) CWC 497 is extracted hereunder:
13. This matter can also be considered in another angle also. Though it is stated that for the academic year 1993-1994 job-linkage under the scheme was withdrawn and 25% of the vacancy in the cadre of Assistant, would be kept aside for those, passing through out side 10 + 2 scheme from the year 1993-1994, no such 25% reservation has been made in the impugned Notification. Therefore, the Notification is in violation of the assurance, commitments made to the 1993-1994 batch students, like Petitioners. It is stated in Paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents in W.P.No.18197 of 2001, that 25% of the vacancies would be kept aside for the passed out of 10 + 2 VI batch students for the year 1993-1994. Therefore, the 25% of the posts, in the total vacancy have to necessarily be reserved for 10 + 2 (1993-1994) students. The Respondent cannot deny the said reservation to the Petitioners, on the ground that they failed in the written examination. When out of 2600 posts, 650 students constitutes 25% and only nine petitioners appeared for the examination, they cannot be denied posting for non-passing. The Respondent could fix minimum and cut of mark only when the nine number of candidates exceeds the available posts.
14. First of all, the written examination is unwarranted as far as 1993-1994 batch students are concerned. If they are made to writ examination, like general candidates, there is no benefits for the year 1993-1994 batch, out of 25% reservation. In other words, 1993-1994 batch students are treated on par with General candidates by writing examination. The contention of the Respondents 1993-1994 students have to undergo written examination like general candidates only to deny 25% reservation to the Petitioners Arbitrary, illegally and capriciously. Admittedly after 1997, now only by impugned Notification, recruitment iks sought to be done. Therefore, during interregnum period viz., between 1997 and 2013, the Petitioners could not have any chance for appointment and they are entitled to relaxation of age.?
12. The relevant portion in Anjana S. Nair Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University 2015(2) CWC 411 is extracted hereunder:
22. Considering all these aspect, I am of the view that the Petitioner having passed three Theory examinations in April 2014, she has to be declared pass by applying the Component System, as she has passed in the Clinical examination and viva-voce in October 2014 examination. Accordingly, I find every justification in allowing the writ petition since the academic carrier of the student should be spoiled solely on the unwarranted compulsion made out of unnecessary confusion by the University on the Petitioner to rewrite the passed Theoretical examination once again when she is otherwise not required to do so under the Component System. The University is to be blamed for all these confusions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to declare the petitioner as pass in M.D.S.(Orthodontics) Post Graduate Course. Such exercise shall be done by the Respondent-University, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ?
13. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents forbearing them from applying new regulation dated 02.07.2014 regarding examinations for Super Speciality Medical Courses to the petitioner and consequently to permit the petitioner to appear only in the failed papers (Practicals for super speciality course) in accordance with the examination regulations of the respondent university during the academic year 2012-13. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.