Dr. Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera and Another Vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Rep. by its Registrar and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1179900
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-22-2015
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 22858 & 23391 of 2015
JudgeA. Ramalingeswara Rao
AppellantDr. Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera and Another
RespondentDr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Rep. by its Registrar and Others
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
indian medical council act, 1956 €“ practical examination €“ since the petitioners had not secured required minimum marks in the practical examination, they were declared to have been failed €“ challenging their result, these two writ petitions were filed. court held €“ plea of respondent no.1 that in view of the declination of appointed external examiners twice and announcement of date for examination in advance, in unavoidable circumstances, the examinations were held with only one external examiner, cannot be entertained €“ standards required from a student of pg medical education are high and at the same time the students would expect evaluation in accordance with regulations in an objective manner €“ insistence.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
common order: these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, as these two writ petitions involve common point of law. the petitioners are graduates in medicine and students of post graduation who are pursuing the course of md general medicine in the third respondent college. the said course is of three years duration. the first respondent university conducted the examination for p.g degree theory and practical on 21.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 respectively. the results of the examinations were declared on 23.06.2015 and the petitioners were stated to have secured the following marks. sl. no.name of the candidatemarks obtained (theory)marks obtained.....
Judgment:

Common Order:

These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as these two writ petitions involve common point of law.

The petitioners are graduates in medicine and students of post graduation who are pursuing the course of MD General Medicine in the third respondent college. The said course is of three years duration. The first respondent University conducted the examination for P.G Degree theory and practical on 21.04.2015 and 13.05.2015 respectively. The results of the examinations were declared on 23.06.2015 and the petitioners were stated to have secured the following marks.

Sl. No.Name of the CandidateMarks obtained (Theory)Marks obtained (Practical)
1Kanigalpula S.P. Manjeera (Petitioner in WP. No.22858/2015)250/400127/300
2Kranthi Kumar (Petitioner in WP. No.23391/2015)224/400127/300

The required minimum marks for theory examination is 200 whereas for practical examination, it is 150 marks. Since the petitioners secured only 127 marks in the practical examination, they were declared to have been failed. Challenging their result, these two writ petitions were filed.

Though the petitioners raised several issues concerning their academic career extolling their performance and attributing some motives against the college due to the role one of the Petitioners acting as a student leader, we are concerned only with the point regarding the procedure followed in conducting clinical/practical and oral examination held on 13.05.2015 in these two writ petitions. It is the common case of the petitioners that in the practical examination, only three examiners were appointed as against the required four examiners i.e., two internal examiners and two external examiners. Only one external examiner, Dr. Mohan K.Kunti alone was present along with two internal examiners. As per the regulations made by the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCI') called the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 ?, which were approved by the Government of India on 22.05.2000 and published in the Official Gazette on 07.10.2000, it is mandatory to have two external examiners. However, in respect of the internal examiners, the examination can be held with only one examiner, but the result in such case shall be published after approval from the MCI. The regulations also prescribe the qualifications for appointment of the external examiners. Even though the two internal examiners included the Head of Department, Dr. K.Satyanarayana Rao, the said Head of Department was not physically present in the entire process of practical examinations as of long case and short cases and orals and only two examiners (one external and one internal) were present. It is also the case of the petitioners that the practical examination for each student was started at 9.30 a.m. (morning session) for long and short cases and discussions by the examiners were started at 11.30 a.m. and ended by 1.30 p.m. for all the students. Fifteen minutes was spent for each candidate to evaluate 200 marks and the said time was hardly sufficient for evaluation of 200 marks. The orals commenced at 2.30 p.m. and was completed by 3.30 p.m. for all the eight students in order to evaluate 100 marks and the said time was also insufficient. In both sessions viz., morning and afternoon, the Head of Department was absent. Thus, the procedure adopted for evaluating 300 marks was not in compliance with the regulations framed by MCI, since there was participation of only one external examiner and one internal examiner. Out of the eight candidates who appeared for the said examination, the petitioners and one Dr.G.Swapna were declared to have been failed in the examination. The said Dr.G.Swapna is from in-service category whereas the petitioners are from non-service category. Out of the total 104 students, who appeared from non-service category in General Medicine, only five candidates were declared to have been failed in practical examination. Out of those five candidates, three candidates are from third respondent college alone. The petitioners further state that there are no specific guidelines and transparency to evaluate 300 marks for long and short cases and oral, giving scope for arbitrary evaluation. They state that there were several instances of victimization in practical examination in the past and it was due to lack of transparency and at the hands of internal examiners. In view of the scope for arbitrariness, the predilections and prejudices of the examiner, his/her attitudes, pre-conceived notions and idiosyncrasies are taking precedence to the objective evaluation. It is giving scope for discrimination, manipulation and nepotism in the hands of the examiners at the time of interview. Even meritorious students can be failed by arbitrary exercise of evaluation. The petitioner in W.P.No.23391/2015 states that he was the President of A.P. Junior Doctors Association for two years and took up several issues relating to emergency services in Government Hospitals especially medical teaching hospitals for improvement of basic facilities and also spearheaded the movement against leakage of question papers in PG Medical Entrance Examination, 2014, which led to the institution of CBCID enquiry and cancellation of the entrance examination itself ultimately. It is also the allegation of the petitioner in W.P.No.23391/2015 that he brought the issue of non-receipt of 9% of Arogyasri Scheme amounts for the entire three years course by the students of MD General Medicine even though they are entitled to it and it may be the cause for his victimisation in practical examination. He stated that he was a bright student right from the school days. Though the petitioners submitted a representation to the first respondent on 02.07.2015 requesting for enquiry into the irregularities in conducting the examinations and for conducting fresh practical examination, since there was no response, they were constrained to file the present writ petitions.

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 by its Registrar, stating that every candidate, who appeared for PG degree examination, should secure a minimum of 50% marks in theory, i.e.200/400 and 50% marks in practical/clinical, i.e.150/300 separately and 50% of total in aggregate to pass PG degree examination. The practical/clinical includes 100 marks for viva voce. A candidate who might have secured good marks in theory also may fail in practical, if the candidate's performance was not upto the mark. Though the petitioners secured more than 50% marks in viva voce but in the practical/clinical examinations, they could not secure the relevant 50% marks. With regard to appointment of external examiners, initially two Professors from Belgaum and Mangalore were asked to be external examiners, but they declined. Another request was made to other Professors in Gulbarga and Bellary, but they too declined to come as examiners. Finally a Professor in Dharwar Medical College, Hubli, was appointed as examiner. In view of the rejection of request by the earlier examiners, since there was no time to appoint a second external examiner, in the circumstances, the practical examination took place without the presence of second external examiner in the 3rd respondent college where the petitioners appeared. The practical/clinical examination was conducted at 29 centres and in all the centres except three centres viz., (i) Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada (ii) Guntur Medical College, Guntur (iii) Siddhardha Medical College, Vijayawada, the practical/clinical examinations were conducted with one external examiner and two internal examiners only. Though the university authorities tried their best to conduct the practical examination at the third respondent college with four examiners, but due to unavoidable circumstances, the practical examination was conducted on 13.05.2015 with only three examiners. The petitioners participated in practical examination without any objection and the results were announced on 23.06.2015, 40 days after the date of examination. Though the petitioners submitted a representation on 02.07.2015 stating that the examination was conducted in deviation of the MCI regulations, since the petitioners participated in the practical examination without any protest, no action was taken on the said representation. One more external examiner could not be appointed in view of the circumstances stated above only. In view of the fact that all arrangements for conduct of practical examinations were held by 13.05.2015, it was felt that any postponement of the examination would cause disappointment to the students, who were thoroughly prepared to undergo the examination. Principal of the third respondent College stated that the Head of Department was physically present in the entire course of examination all the time and coordinated all the events including the evaluation of all the eight students. The evaluation of examination process commenced at 9 a.m. on 13.05.2015 and ended at 2.30 p.m. spending 5 hours. The afternoon session was started at 3.00 p.m. and lasted upto 5.30 p.m.. Thus, the allegation that the time spent by the examiners was not sufficient to evaluate was denied. The marks awarded in the practical examination were according to the guidelines of the University depending on the performance of each candidate in the practical and oral examinations by all the examiners, by collective opinion and after detailed evaluation of the practical skills of each candidate. The other allegations of the petitioners were denied. The capacity of the students in theory examination cannot be compared with the practical examination as the latter requires practical knowledge, skill and clinical approach.

The other respondents have not filed any counter affidavit.

Reply affidavits were filed by the petitioners denying their poor performance in the practical examinations.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the absence of one external examiner is admitted in the counter affidavit and since the conduct of practical examination without two external examiners is contrary to the MCI guidelines, the practical examination held on 13.05.2015 in the third respondent College should be set aside. He relied on the MCI Regulations and the decisions of Dr. Meena Sharma v. H.P.University (1995 LawSuit (HP) 164), M.Venkatesan v. Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Medical Council of India (2009 LawSuit (Mad) 2985)and also the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Dr. R.Geetha v. Dr. MGR Medical University (W.P. No.17259/2011 and M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, dated 10.10.2011). He also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, more particularly, Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120) and Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Rep. by Dy. Registrar, v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal(2007) 10 SCC 201)for the purpose of binding nature of MCI regulations framed under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, the Act').

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, admitted the absence of one of the external examiners, but contended that since the petitioners participated in the practical examination, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the conduct of the examination. The learned Standing Counsel further states that if the examination was to be cancelled on the ground that the examinations were not conducted as per the regulations of the MCI, the examinations of all the candidates have to be cancelled. When the first respondent University addressed a letter to the third respondent, the third respondent stated that the examination was conducted as per the rules followed in all the university examinations and no lapses were found in the examination and hence the examinations shall be declared as valid.

In view of the rival contentions, the following points have to be decided in this case:

(i) Whether the presence of two external examiners in practical examination for PG Medical Examination is mandatory in view of the MCI Regulations or not?, And, if so, for the absence of one external examiner whether the practical examination should be declared invalid?

(ii) Whether the conduct of petitioners participating in the practical examination with only one external examiner would estope them from challenging the conduct of the examination with only one external examiner?

Section 33 of the Act provides for making regulations, which include the regulations for conduct of professional examinations, qualification of examiner and conditions of admission to such examinations. The regulations so framed are called PG Medical Education Regulations 2000 and it was approved by the Government of India on 22.05.2000 and published in the Official Gazette on 07.10.2000. Regulation 14 of the said regulations deals with examinations and sub-regulation 1 deals with examiners. The amended regulation 14 including sub-regulation 1 reads as under:

14. EXAMINATIONS

The examinations shall be organised on the basis of grading or marking system to evaluate and certify candidates level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in theory as well as practical separately shall be mandatory for passing the whole examination. The examination for M.S., M.D, M.Ch shall be held at the end of 3 academic years (six academic terms) and for diploma at the end of 2 academic years (four academic terms). The academic terms shall mean six months training period.

The above clause 14 is substituted in terms of Gazette Notification published on 20.10.2008 and the same is as under:-

The examinations shall be organised on the basis of Gradingor Marking systemto evaluate and to certify candidate's level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training. Obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in Theoryas well as Practicalseparately shall be mandatory for passing examination as a whole. The examination for M.D./MS, D.M., M.Ch shall be held at the end of 3rd academic year and for Diploma at the end of 2nd academic year. An academic term shall mean six month's training period. ?

(1) EXAMINERS

(a) All the Post Graduate Examiners shall be recognised Post Graduate Teachers holding recognised Post Graduate qualifications in the subject concerned.

(b) For all Post Graduate Examinations, the minimum number of Examiners shall be four, out of which at least two (50%) shall be External Examiners, who shall be invited from other recognised universities from outside the State. Two sets of internal examiners may be appointed one for M.D./M.S. and one for diploma.

(c) Under exceptional circumstances, examinations may be held with 3 (three) examiners provided two of them are external and Medical Council of India is intimated the justification of such action prior to publication of result for approval. Under no circumstances, result shall be published in such cases without the approval of Medical Council of India.

(d) In the event of there being more than one centre in one city, the external examiners at all the centres in that city shall be the same. Where there is more than one centre of examination, the University shall appoint a Supervisor to coordinate the examination on its behalf.

The above clause 14.1(d) is deleted in terms of Gazette Notification published on 20.10.2008.

(e) The examining authorities may follow the guidelines regarding appointment of examiners given in Appendix-I.

Sub-regulation 3 deals with number of examinations and it says that the University shall conduct not more than two examinations in the year for any subject with an interval of not less than four and not more than six months between the two examinations. Sub-regulation 4 deals with Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)/Master of Surgery (M.S) course. It says that in respect of the above examination, the subject shall consist of thesis, theory papers, clinical/practical and oral examinations. Sub-regulation 4(c) of Regulation 14 deals with clinical/practical and oral, and it reads as follows:

(c) Clinical / Practical and Oral

(i) Clinical examination for the subjects in Clinical Sciences shall be conducted to test the knowledge and competence of the candidates for undertaking independent work as a specialist/Teacher, for which candidates shall examine a minimum one long case and two short cases.

(ii) Practical examination for the subjects in Basic Medical Sciences shall be conducted to test the knowledge and competence of the candidates for making valid and relevant observations based on the experimental/Laboratory studies and his ability to perform such studies as are relevant to his subject.

(iii) The Oral examination shall be thorough and shall aim at assessing the candidate knowledge and competence about the subject, investigative procedures, therapeutic technique and other aspects of the speciality, which form a part of the examination.

A candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing which shall include (1) Theory, (2) Practical including clinical and viva voce examination. ?

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) held that Section 19A enables the Council to prescribe minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other than PG medical qualifications) by the University or Medical institutions in India while Section 20 gives a power to the Council to prescribe minimum standards of PG medical education for the guidance. The University must necessarily be guided by the standards prescribed under Section 20(1) if their degrees or diplomas are to be recognized under the Act. It rejected the finding given in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1994) 4 SCC 401) to the effect that the standards of PG Medical Education prescribed by the MCI are only directory and the Universities are not bound to comply with the standards so prescribed.

In the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (supra), the Supreme Court held that the regulations framed by the University which are inconsistent with or dilutes the criteria laid down in MCI Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act would be to that extent invalid. Thus, it is clear that the MCI Regulations called PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000 are mandatory and binding on the University and the affiliated colleges. Though this point was not raised by the respondents 1 and 3, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to clarify the position, this finding is recorded.

An identical case came up for consideration before the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court in Dr. Meena Sharma's case (supra) held as follows:

7. Admittedly, the oral, clinical and practical examination which was conducted on 2.9.95 and in which the two petitioners have appeared, was conducted by a team of three examiners, out of which only one was an External Examiner such oral, clinical and practical examination, therefore, on the face of it, has been conducted by the Respondents in violation and contravention of the regulations providing that the minimum number of examiners shall be four, out of which at least two (50%) shall be External Examiner, who shall be invited from another recognized Universities from outside the State though, the regulation permits the conduct of such examination by three Examiners, the same is to be held only under exceptional circumstances with the proviso that two out of the three examiners must be External Examiners and the Medical Council of India is duly intimated with justification for such action prior to the publication of the result for approval. The regulation further provides that under no circumstance, the result is to be published without the approval of the Medical Council of India in case the examination is conducted by a team of three Examiners.

As stated above, it is the admitted case of the Respondents that oral, clinical and practical examination held on 2.9.95 was conducted by a team of three examiners, out of which only one was an External Examiner such a course was not open to the Respondents in view of the regulations of the Medical Council of India referred to above not only that there has been a contravention of the mandatory regulations in respect of the number of examiner, there is also a contravention of the relevant regulation permitting the conduct of examination by a team of three examiners under exceptional circumstances, when an examination is to be held by a team of three Examiners, the following two mandatory requirements are to be fulfilled, namely; (a) out of the three Examiners two must be External Examiners; and (b) the Medical Council of India has to be intimated with justification of such action prior to the publication of the result for approval.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh test for clinical and practical examination for the petitioners in accordance with the statutory regulations of the Medical Council of India by a team of four examiners, out of which at least two should be external examiners, within a period of three months and further directed that the marks/grades obtained by the two petitioners in such fresh oral, clinical and practical examination shall be taken into consideration along with the marks/grades obtained by them in the written examination for the purpose of declaration of their results.

In M.Venkatesan's case (supra), the challenge was to one of the external examiners and it was contended that he was not qualified since he was not a person coming from outside the State and the degree obtained by him was from a University not recognized. The Madras High Court considered the PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000 ?, and extracted the points emerging from examination of regulations in paragraph 16 as follows:

16. From the reading of the said Regulation, the following points are clear:

(i) there should be minimum four examiners out of whom 50% shall be external examiners;

(ii) the appointment of 50% external examiners which is a mandatory requirement as per the statutory regulations shall be from recognized Universities outside the State ?; and

(iii) even in exceptional cases where three examiners can conduct the examinations, the presence of two external examiners is mandatory and in respect of absence of one of the internal examiners, the question of exemption can be considered by the Medical Council of India before publication of results.

Therefore, it is clear that regarding two external examiners, the mandatory requirement is that they should be from outside the State and the external examiners cannot be dispensed with under any circumstance and even the Medical Council of India, which is empowered to consider the exigency of situation relating to internal examiner.

It further held as follows:

24. On the facts of the present case, it may be true that Annamalai University may not be within the University area of Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, but still it is one of the recognized Universities within the State of Tamil Nadu and cannot be treated as a recognized University outside the State. Therefore, applying the said yardstick to the undisputed facts of the case as enumerated above, I am of the considered view that the appointment of one of the external examiners viz., Dr.V.Ravindran, who is the Professor and Head of the Department of Paediatrics in Annamalai University does not comes within the definition of the term, external examiner from outside the State. In addition to that, admittedly, in the Annamalai University no M.Ch. Course is conducted and therefore, he cannot be termed as a super-speciality teacher in Paediatric Surgery, which is the concerned subject, as per the guidelines stated above. On that account also, he cannot be termed as a qualified examiner for conducting the examination.

25. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that even the Medical Council of India cannot grant approval for such an appointment on the basis of any exigent situation, since the same cannot be rectified as a procedural irregularity. In cases of procedural violations, especially regarding qualifications of examiners in super-speciality courses which are mandatory in nature, it is not possible to accept the contention that the requirement of qualifications can be given a go by under emergent circumstances.

26. Further, the contention that clinical examination was conducted for the whole day as a long drawn process with acute specifications from the examiners in testing the quality of students and therefore, there is no possibility for undermining the quality of participated students for the whole day, has no answer for statutory violations which relate to the quality of super-speciality courses and the successful candidate is going to be a highly sophisticated professional to serve the needy patients with practical approach. There cannot be any compromise formula in that regard. In such a detailed examination, there is no scope for presumption of ability unless the examiner himself is competent and qualified as per the statutory regulations which are sine quo non for his academic and practical knowledge to examine the super-speciality candidates.

27. It is true that the third respondent just as any other candidate had also undergone the ordeal of examination for the whole day, but as stated above, there cannot be a compromise formula on the basis of existing Regulations of the Medical Council of India as on date. Unless and until the Medical Council of India takes efforts to frame a self-contained regulations for the purpose of admission and examinations for super-speciality courses in Medicine which is in dire need, there is possibility of recurrence of events like the present instance.

28. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed and the examination in clinical M.Ch. (Peadiatric Surgery) conducted by the first respondent on 10.8.2009 in the Institute of Child Health, Egmore, Chennai, stands cancelled with direction to the first respondent to take immediate steps to conduct fresh examination in respect of the said subject by appointing necessary external and internal examiners as per the statutory regulations enumerated above and such exercise shall be completed by the first respondent University within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter the process of examination including the declaration of results shall be completed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ?

In Dr. R.Geetha's case (supra), the challenge was to the appointment of internal examiner, who was not qualified. The petitioner in the said case, after attending the practical and viva voce test was declared to have been failed in the examination. Thereafter she came to know that one of the internal examiners was not qualified for appointment. The Madras High Court considered the issue, whether due to presence of the said unqualified internal examiner, the petitioner's result was materially affected. Following the earlier order in W.P. No.17012/2009 dated 25.11.2009 (P.Jyothimaji, J.) the learned Single Judge noted with approval the finding recorded in the earlier order that the regulations framed by MCI are binding and they have to be mandatorily followed for appointment of examiners by the University; the appointment of such unqualified internal examiners affect the very conduct of examination and the same cannot be treated as procedural violation. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) was also considered. Ultimately the learned Single Judge held that the appointment of the third respondent as an internal examiner had materially affected the prospect of the petitioner in getting pass mark in viva-voce examination. Accordingly, the results were quashed and the respondents were directed to conduct re-examination to the petitioner by appointing qualified internal examiner in respect of practical and viva-voce alone.

What emerges from the above decisions are as follows:

(i) The PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000 ?, are binding on the Universities and no deviation can be made in respect of those regulations. The deviations in respect of those regulations cannot be called as procedural and they are mandatory and binding.

(ii) The appointment of unqualified internal/external examiners would materially affect the result of the candidates.

(iii) When there is shortage of the required number of external examiners, the University cannot conduct an examination, and only in the case of shortage of internal examiners, the examination can be held with one internal examiner but with two external examiners, and the result of such examination can be declared only with the permission of the MCI.

In view of the above clear position of the regulations and the decisions held by the various High Courts, it has to be held that the practical examination held on 13.05.2015 in the third respondent college is vitiated by non-observance of the regulations framed by the MCI, and accordingly the oral/practical examinations conducted on the said date are liable to be cancelled.

The next point raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent University is that the petitioners appeared for the practical examination on the said date, but they did not raise their protest. After announcement of the result only they submitted a representation and filed the present writ petition and hence, they are estopped from raising such a plea. The rule of estoppel has no application in a case of this nature. Though ignorance of law is no excuse but students of medicine, be they are undergraduates or graduates cannot be expected to know the rules and regulations governing conduct of examinations before hand. They search for a way out when they are faced with a problem and the non-observance of the regulations by the College/University cannot be upheld on the technical plea of estoppel to the detriment of the students. In this case, the college admitted the non-appointment of one of the external examiners. Two bright students were declared to have been failed in practical/clinical examination and they approached this Court after submitting a representation to the respondents 1 to 3. This Court is duty bound to examine the issue and redress their grievance.

An identical plea was raised in the case of Dr.R.Geetha (supra) also in the Madras High Court, and the learned Single Judge held as follows:

22. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in academic matters the Courts shall not interfere and it is the academicians to find out whether a person is qualified or not to be appointed as Examiner, is a general proposition. In a given case, if it is proved that a person appointed as Examiner is not qualified as per the norms/regulations, certainly this Court can interfere as the said examiner is not eligible to be appointed as he lacks qualification. It is the prerogative of the experts to appoint examiners from among qualified persons. It is an admitted position in this case that the third respondent was appointed as internal examiner at the last moment due to the sickness of Dr.umadevi. Therefore participation of the petitioner in the examination will not take away her right to challenge the very appointment of the third respondent on the ground of lack of qualification. If a person appointed is fully qualified, the examinee/person attending examination cannot say who should be appointed as examiner. ?

In the present case also, the first respondent pleaded that in view of the declination of appointed external examiners twice and announcement of date for examination in advance, in unavoidable circumstances, the examinations were held with only one external examiner. In my view, such a plea cannot be entertained in the facts and circumstances of this case. The standards required from a student of PG Medical Education are high and at the same time the students would expect evaluation in accordance with Regulations in an objective manner. The insistence of two external examiners by the regulations is to avoid arbitrariness in the hands of the internal examiners, if any. The lives of the patients cannot be placed in the hands of unqualified doctors but at the same time, a doctor who wants to be qualified cannot be declared as unqualified by arbitrary method. The standard of examination evaluating a student of PG Medical Education should not only be rigid but objective also.

The allegations made by the petitioners that many students are suffering in the hands of the internal examiners by their arbitrary exercise of power of awarding marks on the basis of prejudice and nepotism has to be looked into by the Medical Council of India as greater transparency is needed in practical examinations as pleaded by the petitioners. It is a matter which is in the exclusive domain of Medical Council of India and as it was raised in general terms in the present writ petitions, no finding can be recorded on the same.

In view of the admitted position of absence of one of the external examiners in the practical/clinical examination of the Writ Petitioners, these writ petitions are deserved to be allowed and are accordingly allowed.

It is an admitted case of the first respondent that the practical examinations in (i) Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada (ii) Guntur Medical College, Guntur (iii) Siddhardha Medical College, Vijayawada, the third respondent college was conducted only with one external examiner on 13.05.2015. Three students including the petitioners belonging to third respondent's college failed in the said practical examination. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to conduct a re-examination of clinical/practical and oral examination within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and evaluate the same along with the written examination marks, in which the petitioners already appeared and declare the results, within two (2) weeks thereafter. It is needless to state that if any representation is received by the first respondent from any other student, who appeared for the clinical/practical and oral examination held on 13.05.2015 from Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, and Guntur Medical College, Guntur and from the 3rd respondent college, the same shall be considered by the first respondent in the light of the decision given above.

With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.