Skip to content


1. Dr.V.Rajasekar Vs. 1. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

1. Dr.V.Rajasekar

Respondent

1. the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,

Excerpt:


.....of india for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the final year examination of m.d in community medicine to be conducted in april 2015 by the 1st respondent including forwarding of her dissertation by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent. prayer in w.p.(md) no.17038/2015 writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the final year examination of m.d in biochemistry to be conducted in april 2015 by the 1st respondent including forwarding of her dissertation by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent. !for petitioners : mr.veerakathiravan ^for r1 : mr.c.karthik for r2 : mr.isaac mohanlal :common order dr.v.rajasekar / petitioner in w.p.(md) no.17037 of 2014 has filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit him to participate in the final year examination of m.d in community medicine to be conducted in april 2015 by the 1st respondent.....

Judgment:


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

10. 04.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.17037 of 2014 and WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.17038 of 2014 1. Dr.V.Rajasekar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17037 of 2014 2. Dr.Y.Lydia ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17038 of 2014 -vs- 1. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai-600 032.

2. Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Rep. by its Director Velayudhan Pillai Memorial Hospital Complex, Padanilam, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District-629 161. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.17037/2015 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Final Year Examination of M.D in Community Medicine to be conducted in April 2015 by the 1st Respondent including forwarding of her Dissertation by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.17038/2015 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Final Year Examination of M.D in Biochemistry to be conducted in April 2015 by the 1st Respondent including forwarding of her Dissertation by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent. !For Petitioners : Mr.Veerakathiravan ^For R1 : Mr.C.Karthik For R2 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal :COMMON

ORDER

Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17037 of 2014 has filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit him to participate in the Final Year Examination of M.D in Community Medicine to be conducted in April 2015 by the 1st Respondent including forwarding of her Dissertation by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent.

2. Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17038 of 2014 has filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit her to participate in the Final Year Examination of M.D in Biochemistry to be conducted in April 2015 by the 1st Respondent including forwarding of her Dissertation by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent duly countersigned by the 2nd respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17037 of 2014 in nutshell is as follows: i) Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner is an MBBS, employed as Assistant Surgeon under the Government of Tamil Nadu and is qualified to study M.D.Course under the 1st respondent. Pursuant to his admission in M.D. Community Medicine for the academic year 2012-2013, he sought permission from the Government to undergo the said course and by order dated 03.10.2012, the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagercoil accorded permission to him with some delay to pursue his study at his own cost and also sanctioned Extraordinary Leave for one year. Though he has completed his first and second year successfully and submitted his dissertation countersigned by his guide, the 2nd respondent did not forward the same to the University and later on, it was orally informed to him that owing to shortage of attendance, his dissertation was not forwarded and he was also not permitted to take up his examinations in April, 2015. ii) It is submitted by Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner that the act of the 2nd respondent in not permitting him to participate in the final year M.D.examination of April, 2015 is highly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable. The 2nd respondent college admitted him in the course on 30.06.2012, collected fees for all the three years and finally without disclosing anything about the shortage of attendance, prevented him from appear for the examinations, which is bad in law. iii) It is also submitted by Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner that the 2nd respondent had earlier permitted another Assistant Surgeon, namely, Dr.V.S.Deepa to appear for the examination in April, 2014, though her date of relieving from service was 24.11.2011 and therefore, Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner sought extension of the very same treatment to him on par with the said Dr.Deepa.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17038 of 2014 in nutshell is as follows: i) Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner is an MBBS, employed as Assistant Surgeon under the Government of Tamil Nadu and is qualified to study M.D. Course under the 1st respondent. Pursuant to his admission in M.D. Biochemistry for the academic year 2012-2013, she sought permission from the Government to undergo the said course and by order dated 30.11.2012, the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kulasekaram accorded permission to her with some delay to pursue her study at her own cost and also sanctioned Extraordinary Leave for one year. Though she has completed her first and second year successfully and submitted her dissertation countersigned by her guide, the 2nd respondent did not forward the same to the University and later on, it was orally informed to her that owing to shortage of attendance, her dissertation was not forwarded and she was also not permitted to take up the examinations in April, 2015. ii) It is submitted by Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner that the act of the 2nd respondent in not permitting her to participate in the final year M.D. examination of April, 2015 is highly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable. The 2nd respondent college admitted her in the course on 30.06.2012, collected fees for all the three years and finally without disclosing anything about the shortage of attendance, prevented her from appearing for the examinations, which is bad in law. iii) It is also submitted by Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner that the 2nd respondent had earlier permitted another Assistant Surgeon, namely, Dr.V.S.Deepa to appear for the examination in April, 2014, though her date of relieving from service was 24.11.2011 and therefore, Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner sought extension of the very same treatment to her on par with the said Dr.Deepa.

5. The first respondent has filed a common counter, in which it has been stated as under: i) The duration of Postgraduate course is three years and that the petitioners were relieved from their duties on 03.10.2012 and 30.11.2012 respectively and hence, they are entitled to appear for the examinations only in October, 2015. It is submitted that it is incorrect to state that the dissertation has to be accepted in October, 2014 taking into account the date of report for admission, i.e. 30.06.2012, because the petitioners started attending the classes only from 04.10.2012 and 30.11.2012 respectively after their relieving from the Government duty. As per the regulations of Medical Council of India, the duration of PG course is three years and the petitioners complete three years of study only in October, 2015 and the dissertation is to be submitted six months prior to October, 2015, i.e., during April, 2015. ii) In the present case, since both the petitioners have not secured the required attendance as prescribed by the MCI, they were not permitted to write the examinations due to short fall in attendance. It is submitted that the allegation of fabrication and alteration of attendance register is totally erroneous on the ground that the first respondent university is not maintaining any attendance register. Therefore, it is contended that if the petitioners are allowed to write the examinations, it will become a wrong precedent to other candidates.

6. The second respondent in their counters has stated as follows: i) Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kulasekaram at Kanyakumari District / 2nd respondent is owned and administered by the Trust known as "Padanilam Welfare Trust". The affairs of the Trust are managed by the Board of Trustees composed of three Trustees and Trust is doing yeomen service in the field of education, particularly for the benefit of the Malayalam speaking people, who are linguistic minorities in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Trust also runs three educational institutions. ii) The institutions are maintaining high academic standard and uniform discipline among the students. The colleges are situated in a calm and serene atmosphere in an extent of about 56 acres of land and they have good infrastructure such as 550 bedded Multi Specialty Hospital, fully equipped Laboratories, well furnished classrooms, library, playground for outdoor games and indoor games, Gymnasium, separate Hostels for boys and Girls, Banking facility, Stationary Shop and other amenities. The institutions of the Trust are affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University and are offering various medical courses at the Graduate and Post Graduate level. iii) Dr.V.Rajasekar / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17037 of 2014 and Dr.Y.Lydia / Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17038 of 2014, who possess MBBS Degree, are Government Servants, serving as Assistant Surgeons in the Department of Health & Family Welfare under the Government of Tamil Nadu. Dr.V.Rajasekar got admission in the respondent college for the Post Graduate Degree course of M.D. in Community Medicine and Dr.Y.Lydia for M.D. in Biochemistry for the academic years 2012-2015. The duration of each course is 3 years and there are two examinations, one at the end of the first year and the other at the end of the third year. iv) The respondent college gave intimation regarding the petitioners' admission vide letter dated 09.07.2012 and the Government also permitted them to undergo the courses vide GO (D) No.880 (Health & FW-B1) dated 04.09.2012 and GO (D) No.1205 (Health & FW-B1) dated 19.11.2012 respectively, by sanctioning Extraordinary Leave on loss of pay for a period of one year and that Dr.V.Rajasekar was relieved from his duty in the afternoon on 03.10.2012 vide proceedings of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagercoil dated 03.10.2012 and Dr.Y.Lydia was relieved from her duty in the Fore Noon on 30.11.2012 vide proceedings of the Medical Officer, Kulasekaram dated 30.11.2012. Dr.V.Rajasekar joined the course on 04.10.2012 and started attending classes from 08.10.2012 and Dr.Y.Lydia joined the course on 30.11.2012 and started attending classes from the same day. Since the classes for the academic session had started much earlier, i.e., from June, 2012, the petitioners fell short of the minimum required attendance of 85% as prescribed by the 1st respondet University. v) If a candidate does not have adequate attendance to appear for the 1st year examination, he / she will have to take it up only in the subsequent session after acquiring the required attendance and the petitioners took the 1st year examination only in the subsequent examination held in October, 2013 and as such, the petitioners' attendance for the 2nd year would be reckoned only from October, 2013 and that they are eligible to take up their final examination only in October, 2015 and not in April, 2015. vi) Insofar as the respondent college is concerned, out of 18 students, only 13 students are eligible to take the examination in April, 2015 and their dissertations were also forwarded to the University on 24.09.2014 together with prescribed fee. Five candidates, including the petitioners herein, are found not eligible to take the examination in April, 2015 due to the shortage of attendance and that they will be eligible only in October, 2015 examination. As regards the averments made in respect of one Dr.V.S.Deepa, she did not suffer any attendance shortage and therefore, she was permitted to write her examination in April, 2014 after forwarding her dissertation prior to six months. Though she got the relieving order from the Government on 24.11.2011, she had been regularly attending the course since 08.06.2011. vii) It is submitted by the 2nd respondent that in the case of the petitioners, they do not possess the required attendance of 85% attendance to take the regular 1st year examinations in April, 2013 and on the other hand, they took the examinations only in the subsequent session in October, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners' attempt of comparing themselves with the said Deepa is ill-founded. Hence, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions.

7. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to by their names.

8. Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for both the petitioners submits that as per the instruction given by the first respondent, biometric attendance system has to be followed in the colleges affiliated to the first respondent and that has not been followed in the second respondent college. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the Regulations of attendance for Under Graduate and Post Graduate Degree Courses and the same are extracted below: "II. a) POST GRADUATE DEGREE / DIPLOMA IN MEDICAL & DENTAL/SUPER SPECIALITY (D.M./M.Ch.) COURSES:

1. The Academic session commences from 2nd May as per Medical Council of India. The Classes for Post Graduate students will commence from 15th May of every year and the University examination will commence from 1st May of the next year. Therefore, the attendance will be calculated for the Post Graduate students from 15th May of the same year to 14th May of the next year including examination period.

2. The total number of working days for the Post Graduate Students of Medical & Dental courses for a period of one academic year is as follows: Total No.of days in a year - 365 days a) No.of weekly off in a year- 52 days b) Government Holidays -) c) Vacation Days -) 43 days 95 days Total No.of working days including examination period - 270 days 3) 85% of attendance on 270 working days (i.e. 230 days) is mandatory for Post Graduate students to appear for the University Examination in May/Novemebr 2013 examination onwards. 4) The Post Graduate students can avail the remaining 10% on 270 teaching days (viz) 27 days leave. Any kind of leave including Medical leave for more than 27 days in an academic year will not be allowed. 5) There shall be no condonation of any kind of leave for any reason including Pregnancy, Child Birth, Medical conditions of any nature. This is because incompletion of the required term days will result in incomplete training, jeopardizing the life of human beings. HUMAN LIFE CANNOT BE COMPROMISED ON ANY ACCOUNT. 6) The candidate shall not carry over the unavailed leave of that academic year to the subsequent academic years except on Medical grounds or on Material grounds or on Maternity leave. 7) The candidate can carry over the unavailed period of leave (i.e.) 10% of total working days to the next year of study and so on and can be permitted to avail the leave in the subsequent year of study either on Medical grounds or on Maternity leave, but the total leave period should not exceed to the extent to which the candidate is eligible for leave. 8) In case of Postgraduate students posted for training in any other Departments or Institutions for a period of one or two months as the case may be, the candidate should get the attendance from that Institution/Departments and submit the attendance to the Head of the Departments in which the candidate is undergoing the course who will forward the attendance to the University. 9) The Post Graduate Students in Non-Clinical courses who are appearing for the examination at the end of final year has to acquire the required 85% of attendance for academic year put together. If the candidate is having lack of attendance in any of the academic year, the candidate has to attend the classes even after completion of the course and the candidate will be permitted to appear for the subsequent examination only after the candidate earns the minimum required attendance. 10) The Post Graduate students in clinical courses who do not have adequate attendance to appear for the 1st year examination will take up the said examination in the said subsequent sessions after requiring the required attendance. The duration of the 2nd year of the Post Graduate programme will be calculated only from the time of appearance in the 1st year examination. For example, if a candidate is lacks attendance for May 2011 examination he/she can appear for the 1st year examination only in the subsequent session viz., in September 2011 after acquiring the required attendance. The 2nd year Post Graduate programme will commence from September 2011 and the candidate will become eligible to appear for the University final year examination in September 2012 for Post Graduate Diploma course and September 2013 for Post Graduate Degree course, if he/she fulfilled attendance and other requisite eligibility. 11) The Dean/Principal of the institutions has to furnish the attendance particulars indicating the number of working days attended by the candidate every quarter i.e. up to 14th August, 14th November, 14th February & 30th April through on line to this University. The hard copy of the attendance particulars has also to be sent to the Controller of Examinations of this university. 12) Before commencement of examination of the year the Dean/Principal lf the Institution has to furnish the consolidated attendance particulars of the candidates indicating the number of days each month for a period of one year to this University. 13) There are no study holidays permissible by the University. 14) For calculating working days, the period of examination is considered as working days. 15) The attendance particulars for the examination session for the respective study period has to be submitted 15 days prior to the commencement of the examination. As the candidate has paid the fees for the particular examination, it is presumed that he/she will attend the rest of the classes for the next 15 days after submission of attendance particulars to the University and appear for the examination. 16) The above clauses 1 to 15 are applicable to Super Specialty (D.M./M.Ch.) courses according to their examination schedule (main batch)."

By relying on the above Regulations, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not necessary for the petitioners to compulsorily have attendance of 230 days for every academic year and if a student appeared for more than 230 days in the first year, beyond 230 days, it should be counted for the next year, which is relevant for Dr.V.Rajasekar. For non- clinical candidates, 690 days in three years is totally sufficient and not 85% of 230 days as stipulated in the Regulation.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Regulations have subsequently been amended and that the same has also come into force with effect from October, 2013, which reads as follows: "The PG students in Clinical/Non Clinical courses who do not have adequate attendance to appear for the first/final year examination will take up the said examination in the subsequent sessions only after acquiring the required attendance and progress."

However, the 2nd year year study will start from the fulfillment of the 1st year attendance."

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also addressed arguments based on the the 46th Meeting of the Standing Academic Board, wherein, it has been resolved that the recommendations of the Board of Studies in P.G. Clinical Degree Courses for the amendments in the existing regulations pertaining to the "calculation of attendance" is applicable for P.G. Clinical and Non- Clinical Course. Hence, the duration of the study period shall be calculated from the date of admission. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioners have been admitted in the college on 30.06.2012, the period shall be reckoned from that date. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attendance of this Court to the attendance register to show that there is a discrepancy in calculation of the the number of days of attendance and if the same has been properly calculated, the petitioners would have completed the days of attendance more than the required number of days to take up the examination, scheduled in April, 2015.

11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that one Dr.Deepa, a similarly placed person, had joined the course in November, 2011 and was permitted to take up the examination in April, 2014. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the details collected through the Right to Information Act from the Dean, Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital, to the 6th question as to the period from which Dr.Deepa was on leave for studying M.D. Biochemistry and the information received was that she was on leave from 25.11.2011 onwards and has successfully completed the course on 21.10.2014. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very same treatment may also be extended to the petitioners herein. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court to the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (in short ?.MCI Regulations, 2000?.) 13.2 with regard to the Training Programme, in which it has been stated as under: "13.2 All candidates joining the Post Graduate training programme shall work as full time residents during the period of training, attending not less than 80% (Eighty percent) of the training during each calendar year, and given full time responsibility, assignments and participation in all facets of the educational process."

Thus, the submission of the petitioners is that in this case, if the MCI Regulation is taken into account, the petitioners would have completed more than 80% of the attendance, but fall short of 85% of attendance, as required by the respondent university. Since the petitioners have produced their dissertation, that they have paid their examination fees and that the examinations are going to be scheduled in this month, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners be permitted to take up the examinations in April, 2015 itself.

12. Per contra, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the second respondent contends that the petitioners should complete 230 days of attendance in each academic year and the same cannot be violated. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after 230 days of compulsory attendance, the remaining days will be carried forward to the next academic year, is not correct. In case examinations were not conducted immediately after one year, the period of study beyond 270 days will be carried forward to the next academic year and not beyond 230 days as contended by the petitioners.

13. In reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of the training programme, it is stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the MCI Regulations, 2000 has specifically mentioned about the period of training in Regulation 10(1) of the MCI Regulations, 2000 with regard to the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) / Master of Surgery (M.S.) to the extent that the period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination. The contention of the petitioners with reference to MCI Regulation 13.2 that the attendance prescribed by the respondent University is 85%, which is contrary to the MCI Regulations, 2000, which mandates that a candidate shall not have less than 80% and hence, the act of the petitioner in not permitting the petitioners to write the examinations is not appreciable, cannot be accepted at no stretch of the imagination, because the Medical Council of India, being the Supreme Body, has laid down certain norms over the core issues like attendance, which mandates 80% of attendance for some courses and it has extended the facility of framing their own Regulations to the Universities of Medical Education in respect of attendance and the prescription of 80% attendance by the MCI is not applicable for all the Universities and for all the courses.

14. From the affidavits filed by the petitioners, it is clear that they have joined the course only in November, 2012 and not in June 2012, since Dr.V.Rajasekar was relieved from his duty with effect from 03.10.2012 and Dr.Y.Lydia with effect from 30.11.2012. The contention of the petitioners, that beyond 230 days, the remaining days will have to be taken into account for the next academic year, is not correct and if this is allowed, candidates, who attended training programme for 690 (230x3) days continuously in a period of less than two years (365 x 2), will have to be permitted to take up the examinations at the end of the academic year. The submission of the petitioners that they have been discriminated, cannot be accepted, as the similarly placed person, namely, Dr.Deepa had adequate attendance, as could be seen from the attendance register furnished by the petitioners. The matter as to whether the said Dr.Deepa had joined the course prior to the approval from Government may not be appropriate for this Court to apprise at this stage, since she is not a party to this writ petition. The attendance register clearly shows that Dr.Deepa had joined in June, 2011 and that she had signed the attendance, pursuant to which, she was rightly permitted by the College to take up the examination in April, 2014.

15. With regard to the discrepancy in calculating the number of days of attendance, as pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent controverted that there is a discrepancy in the attendance in respect of two months only and if those days are taken into account for calculation, still the petitioners could not satisfy the requirement of 85% of the attendance in every academic year as mentioned in the Regulation. Moreover, as per the Regulations, there shall be no condonation of any kind of leave. Even though the courses commenced in April, 2012, the petitioners joined only in October and November, 2012 respectively. The respondent University has also specifically mentioned that after taking up the first year examinations, the second year commences and hence, the petitioners' second academic year commences only from October, 2013. Thus, the academic year insofar as the petitioners are concerned, comes to an end in October / November, 2015 only. If the rules and regulations are diluted, the very purpose of prescribing attendance by the respondent University will be defeated, as the 2nd respondent will have to allow two other students like that of petitioners to take up the examinations in that fashion.

16. Learned counsel for the first respondent University, while reiterating the points urged by the learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that at the time of commencement of examinations, the affiliated institutions used to forward the attendance particulars of the candidates to the first respondent University and the University will scrutinize the same and issue hall tickets to the candidates, who have obtained required attendance prescribed by the respective Central councils. Thereafter, the first respondent University will forward the approved list of eligible candidates to the institution through on line system for appearing for examinations. Since it was found that the petitioners did not possess the required attendance, they were rightly prevented from appearing for the ensuing examinations.

17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material documents available on record.

18. A circumspection of the fact would reveal that Dr.V.Rajasekar and Dr.Y.Lydia / the petitioners herein, who are Assistant Surgeons under the Government of Tamil Nadu, got study leave for pursuing their P.G. studies for the academic year 2012-2013. Dr.V.Rajasekar got admission in M.D. Community Medicine and Dr.Y.Lydia in M.D. Biochemistry with the second respondent Institute. For the said purpose, Dr.V.Rajasekar was relived from his duty with effect from 03.10.2012 and Dr.Y.Lydia with effect from 30.11.2012. Since the classes for the courses were started in the month of April, 2012, pursuant to the petitioners' late joining in the college, they were not permitted by the second respondent to write their examinations in April, 2015 for shortage of attendance. As per the Regulation of the University, students fulfilling minimum 85% of the attendance will be allowed to take up their examinations, which works out to 230 days per year. A bare reading of the University Regulation [II (a) 2)]. makes it very clear that the respondent University has calculated the total number of working days, viz., 270 days for the Post Graduate Students of Medical and Dental Course for a period of one academic year and no where in the Regulation, it is stated that total 690 days in three years is sufficient for the Post Graduate Students to fulfill the norms.

19. Once a Regulation has been set down and students are required to adhere to the said Regulation, it is for them to see that there is no deviation from such Regulation and it is incumbent upon them to follow the same. In this case, it is no doubt true that 85% of attendance on 270 working days (i.e.230 days) is mandatory for Post Graduate students to become eligible for the University Examination to be conducted in May / November 2013 examination onwards. The Regulations do not even entertain condonation of any kind of leave for any reason including Pregnancy, Child Birth, Medical conditions etc. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot expect relaxation in the Regulations for their case alone. The reason for such strict implementation of the Regulation is that the first respondent University does not want the human life to be compromised on any account, because according to them incomplete training will put the human life in danger. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard does not hold good.

20. With regard to the submission that the petitioners have not been treated on par with one Dr.Deepa, who, though joined in the College in the month of November, was permitted to take up her examination, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are trying to fish in troubled waters. Because, the said Dr.Deepa is not before this Court and whether she had joined the course by throwing dust in the eye of the appropriate authority is the matter to be gone into by the Government. As per records, as she was having sufficient attendance, she was rightly permitted by the second respondent to write her examinations. Thus, claiming equality on par with Dr.Deepa by the petitioners does not have legs to stand.

21. The next contention raised by the petitioners in respect of the training programme has been refuted by the learned counsel for the second respondent by stating that the said Clause 13.2 has been substituted in terms of Gazette Notification published on 20.10.2008 and the same is as under: ?.Clause 13.2 - ?.All the candidates joining the Post Graduate training programme shall work as 'Full Time Residents' during the period of training and shall attend not less than 80% (Eighty percent) of the imparted training during each academic year including assignments, assessed full time responsibilities and participation in all facets of the educational process.?. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that if a student claims benefit out of the said substituted clause, he/she should be a full time resident, besides not having less than 80% of the imparted training during each academic year.

22. There is much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. A close reading of the MCI Regulations, 2000 with regard to the period of training would reveal that the period of training for obtaining certain degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination, provided that in the case of students having a recognized two year postgraduate diploma course in the same subject, the period of training, including the period of examination, shall be two year. This is not the case of the petitioners that they have postgraduate diploma courses in the same discipline and therefore, their case has to be considered. Therefore, the contention raised in this regard lacks merit acceptance.

23. With regard to the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on a scrutiny of the attendance register, it is seen that even if the argument is taken for granted, it will not come to the rescue of the petitioners as a whole on account of the slight discrepancy in calculation of number of days attended for particular two months.

24. In the event of this Court allowing this petition, it will amount to injustice and discrimination, thereby setting a wrong precedent, because, along with these petitioners, according to the second respondent, other three students were estopped from writing examinations on account of their non eligibility in taking up the examinations in April, 2015.

25. Rules and regulations are made not to be broken. Rules are made for the safety and better welfare of the students. Another is to impart full fledged study experience and also to maintain the good image of the institution. It is to be remembered that implementing rules and regulations will help the students mold their values expected from them by other people. Without rules and regulations, all civilization would plunge into chaos, as there would be nothing protecting us from one another?.s most basic self serving instincts, and sometimes self-destructive habits. Often time?.s simple rules and regulations protect us from ourselves, such as not touching a hot furnace or driving through an intersection when the light is red. If we look just at laws of the road one can quickly see how many devastating accidents would occur (and how many lives would be ruined) if S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., ar no one followed the rules of the road. Without the utmost care to follow these rules, things that could easily be prevented may happen, resulting in very negative things. The very same principle is applicable to the facts of the present case. Insistence of 85% attendance by the respondent University is not to create perplexity in the minds of the petitioners, rather the respondent University aims at shaping its students / candidates in full form by imparting nook and corner and ups and downs of the course, which they have chosen, so as to become experts in their medical profession.

26. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10.04.2015 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No.ar Note: Issue order copy on 16.04.2015 To:

1. The Registrar The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai-600 032.

2. The Director Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Velayudhan Pillai Memorial Hospital Complex, Padanilam, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District-629 161. WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.17037 and 17038 of 2014


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //