Dr. V. Sitalakshmi Vs. Registrar, A.P. University of Health Science, Vijayawada and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - shortfall in attendance - petitioner admitted to existing course after some delay because of adamant behavior of university - due to shortage of attendance not allowed to sit in examination - duration of course not to change from student to student but has to be same for batch - shortfall of attendance due to delay of university on giving admission - held, university bound to condone shortfall in attendance. - order1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the principal of the s.v. medical college dated 8-7-1997 by which the petitioner was informed that she is eligible to appear for the university examinations only after completion of three years duration of course by putting required attendance from the date of joining into m.d. (o&g;) course. he hias further stated that she will complete her three years duration of course by 9-6-1998 only.2. the background of this case is that the petitioner appeared for the entrance examination for p.g. course for the academic year 1993-94 as an in-service candidate working as a doctor from 1981. pending her admission, she joined the diploma course in gynaecology on 2-8-1993. due to orders of this court regarding revaluation of the entrance test papers she became eligible on being considered for the post graduate course. she, therefore, joined m.s. (general surgery) .course on 5-9-1994. later she came to know that another student who was admitted to m.d, (gynaecology) had left that course on 31-12-1994. she requested that she may be given that seat. when she was denied that request, she filed w.p.no. 206/1995 which was allowed on 8-3-1995 directing that she be admitted to the m.d. (gynaecology) course. in that order, the objections of the university-were that the admissions are closed on 31-10-1994 itself, that seniors to the petitioner have not been considered, that consequential vacancies would also had to be given beyond the date of admission and in particular the petitioner may not be able to give full attendance in gynaecology course. these objections of the university and in particular the last objection was specifically rejected. a writ appeal no.271/1995 filed against that order was also dismissed on 1-11-1995. in the meanwhile, during the pendency of the writ appeal, the university sought interim stay of the order of the learned single judge but the bench by an order dated 28-4-1995 directed that the petitioner should be admitted within a week. the university took the matter to the supreme court which dismissed the special leave petition on 12-5-1995. consequently, the registrar of the university issued an order dated 8-6-1995 referring to the earlier facts stated above and admitted the petitioner to the m.d. (o&g;) course. the operative portion of this order is extracted as follows:'dr. v sita lakshmi has to report to principal, s.v.medical college, tirupati alongwith bond in prescribed proforma within one week from the date of receipt of this order to obtain the admission card into m.d. (o&g;) course (1993-94) by paying the necessary fee. she is eligible to appear for the university examinations only after completion of 3 years duration of course by putting required attendance from the date of joining into m.d. (o&g;) course.' 3. the case of the petitioner is that even though she was admitted only on 8-6-1995, she has been treated as part of 1993-94 batch and she had completed the training along with the other students of that batch as given by the proceedings of the university and she also has the minimum attendance requirement, and therefore, she should be allowed to sit for the examination along with the other students of 1993-94 batch.4. the learned counsel for the university and college has several objections to this contention of the petitioner. it was argued that the supreme court has held that there must be uniform period of training for all the course in all the universities and the medical council has also framed rules insisting upon such equal period of training and if this student alone is given an exemption, she does not meet the said requirement. relying on die decision of a bench of this court in w.p.no.13802/1997 and batch, it was submitted that on principle, the period of training is more important than the minimum attendance and only if the candidate completes the whole period of training that he can request that his absence upto a maximum 15 percent can be condoned to enable him to sit for the examination. in that case, the student who had joined the diploma course of 1993-94 batch, had in september 1996 taken a test for joining a different course and thereby left the diploma course, yet they sought a direction to be allowed to sit for the diploma course examination on the ground that the period which they had undergone in the diploma course was within the stipulated attendance requirement. the bench rejected this contention by pointing out that the completion of the course is more important than the requirement of minimum attendance. i find that the present case is quite different and completely distinguishable on facts. here is a case where the petitioner was admitted to the existing course after some delay because the university was adamant in not admitting the petitioner in spite of a direction by this court. it is not the fault of the petitioner that mere was a delay in joining the course and that delay docs not mean that the course will start for her from the date of the admission. as prescribed by the medical council in terms of the supreme court, the duration of the course is only three years for 1993-94 batch and it will be wrong to say that the duration of the course will be a separate period of three years for the petitioner alone, calculated from the date of her admission as any such condition will go against the medical council rules whicli prescribes uniform course duration for all the students of the same batch. the duration of the course will not change from student to student but has to be the same for the batch, the duration of the course for the batch of 1993-94 is three years from 1994 and will be completed in 1997. it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the other students and has undergone the period of training as undergone by the other students along with them except for the delay in the admission which was due to no fault of the petitioner. secondly, the petitioner will be completing the course along with the other students unlike the case cited where the petitioner had left the course without completing it, and yet, sought a direction to sit for the examination only on the ground that they had minimum attendance requirement. i am of the opinion that the said decision has no application to the facts of this case.5. the second objection taken by the learned counsel for the university is that the petitioner has not proved that she has 85 per cent of minimum attendance. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she may not have 85 per cent .but she definitely has 75 per cent attendance and any shortfall can be condoned by the university. the learned counsel for the university submitted that any shortfall can be condoned only for reasons beyond the control of the student such as, illness and the condonation provision cannot be utilised to enable a student to write the examination without completing three years of training. i am of the opinion that this is a perverse argument which tries to hide the fact that the petitioner was admitted to the particular course of a duration of three years and had completed the course along with the other students of the same batch and that the shortfall in attendance in solely due to the delay of the university in giving admission, and therefore, for reasons completely beyond the control of the petitioner. the university, is therefore, bound to condone the shortfall in attendance if it is within the permissible limits. it appears to me that the attitude of the university which has caused the shortfall in attendance is to utilise the said shortfall to deny the right of the petitioner to sit for the examination on completion of the course by incorrectly stating that the training period of three years is not over ignoring the fact that the petitioner has undergone the training along with the other students from the date of the admission and the shortfall is only in attendance and not in the duration of the course. i have to strongly deprecate this attitude of the university which borders on contempt of court as it is designed to deny the fruits of litigation to the petitioner.6. the third objection was that the government has issued an order granting leave of three years absence to the petitioner, who is an inservice candidate for completing the course and the said three years spreads upto june, 1998, and therefore, it had recognised even by the government that the period of course, so far as the petitioner is concerned, went beyond september, 1997. i am unable to accept this contention. the leave of absence has been given to complete the course of study and it cannot be turned around to argue that because a longer period of absence has been given, the period of study also will be extended beyond the duration of usual course applicable to the 1993-94 batch.7. the last objection taken by the learned counsel for the university is that the period of training undergone in the diploma course cannot be counted for this course. the petitioner has not pleaded for such set off. all that the petitioner wants is that she must be allowed to sit for the examination along with the 1993-94 batch of students as she was admitted to that batch and completed the course along with the other students. i see no justification for the university to single her out and prevent her from writing the examination along with the other students of the same batch. the university requires her to sit for the examination in the next year as if she had been admitting in the next batch. but having admitted her in 1993-94 batch, it is not possible for the university to contend that the duration of the course for her alone goes beyond the duration of the course for the 1993-94 batch to which she belongs.8. since 1 do not find any valid objection by the university to deny the right of the petitioner to sit for the examination along with the 1993-94 batch. i am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is wholly unreasonable and invalid. it is, accordingly set aside. it is stated that the last date for giving application and paying the fees is today. inasmuch as the case has been decided only at 3.00 p.m. today, and ensuing three day's are holidays, i direct the university to accept the application and the fee if presented on or before 19-8-1997. the condonation for shortage in attendance shall also be entertained and granted. the petitioner shall be allowed to sit for examination if she has 75 per cent minimum attendance.9. with this direction, the writ petition is allowed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Principal of the S.V. Medical College dated 8-7-1997 by which the petitioner was informed that she is eligible to appear for the University examinations only after completion of three years duration of course by putting required attendance from the date of joining into M.D. (O&G;) course. He hias further stated that she will complete her three years duration of course by 9-6-1998 only.

2. The background of this case is that the petitioner appeared for the entrance examination for P.G. course for the academic year 1993-94 as an in-service candidate working as a doctor from 1981. Pending her admission, she joined the diploma course in Gynaecology on 2-8-1993. Due to orders of this Court regarding revaluation of the entrance test papers she became eligible on being considered for the Post Graduate Course. She, therefore, joined M.S. (General Surgery) .course on 5-9-1994. Later she came to know that another student who was admitted to M.D, (Gynaecology) had left that course on 31-12-1994. She requested that she may be given that seat. When she was denied that request, she filed W.P.No. 206/1995 which was allowed on 8-3-1995 directing that she be admitted to the M.D. (Gynaecology) course. In that order, the objections of the University-were that the admissions are closed on 31-10-1994 itself, that seniors to the petitioner have not been considered, that consequential vacancies would also had to be given beyond the date of admission and in particular the petitioner may not be able to give full attendance in Gynaecology course. These objections of the University and in particular the last objection was specifically rejected. A Writ Appeal No.271/1995 filed against that order was also dismissed on 1-11-1995. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the writ appeal, the University sought interim stay of the order of the learned single Judge but the Bench by an order dated 28-4-1995 directed that the petitioner should be admitted within a week. The University took the matter to the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 12-5-1995. Consequently, the Registrar of the University issued an order dated 8-6-1995 referring to the earlier facts stated above and admitted the petitioner to the M.D. (O&G;) course. The operative portion of this order is extracted as follows:

'Dr. V Sita Lakshmi has to report to Principal, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati alongwith bond in prescribed proforma within one week from the date of receipt of this order to obtain the admission card into M.D. (O&G;) course (1993-94) by paying the necessary fee. She is eligible to appear for the University Examinations only after completion of 3 years duration of course by putting required attendance from the date of joining into M.D. (O&G;) course.'

3. The case of the petitioner is that even though she was admitted only on 8-6-1995, she has been treated as part of 1993-94 batch and she had completed the training along with the other students of that batch as given by the proceedings of the University and she also has the minimum attendance requirement, and therefore, she should be allowed to sit for the examination along with the other students of 1993-94 batch.

4. The learned Counsel for the University and College has several objections to this contention of the petitioner. It was argued that the Supreme Court has held that there must be uniform period of training for all the course in all the Universities and the Medical Council has also framed rules insisting upon such equal period of training and if this student alone is given an exemption, she does not meet the said requirement. Relying on die decision of a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13802/1997 and batch, it was submitted that on principle, the period of training is more important than the minimum attendance and only if the candidate completes the whole period of training that he can request that his absence upto a maximum 15 percent can be condoned to enable him to sit for the examination. In that case, the student who had joined the diploma course of 1993-94 batch, had in September 1996 taken a test for joining a different course and thereby left the diploma course, yet they sought a direction to be allowed to sit for the diploma course examination on the ground that the period which they had undergone in the diploma course was within the stipulated attendance requirement. The Bench rejected this contention by pointing out that the completion of the course is more important than the requirement of minimum attendance. I find that the present case is quite different and completely distinguishable on facts. Here is a case where the petitioner was admitted to the existing course after some delay because the University was adamant in not admitting the petitioner in spite of a direction by this Court. It is not the fault of the petitioner that mere was a delay in joining the course and that delay docs not mean that the course will start for her from the date of the admission. As prescribed by the Medical Council in terms of the Supreme Court, the duration of the course is only three years for 1993-94 batch and it will be wrong to say that the duration of the course will be a separate period of three years for the petitioner alone, calculated from the date of her admission as any such condition will go against the Medical Council rules whicli prescribes uniform course duration for all the students of the same batch. The duration of the course will not change from student to student but has to be the same for the batch, The duration of the course for the batch of 1993-94 is three years from 1994 and will be completed in 1997. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the other students and has undergone the period of training as undergone by the other students along with them except for the delay in the admission which was due to no fault of the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner will be completing the course along with the other students unlike the case cited where the petitioner had left the course without completing it, and yet, sought a direction to sit for the examination only on the ground that they had minimum attendance requirement. I am of the opinion that the said decision has no application to the facts of this case.

5. The second objection taken by the learned Counsel for the University is that the petitioner has not proved that she has 85 per cent of minimum attendance. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she may not have 85 per cent .but she definitely has 75 per cent attendance and any shortfall can be condoned by the University. The learned Counsel for the University submitted that any shortfall can be condoned only for reasons beyond the control of the student such as, illness and the condonation provision cannot be utilised to enable a student to write the examination without completing three years of training. I am of the opinion that this is a perverse argument which tries to hide the fact that the petitioner was admitted to the particular course of a duration of three years and had completed the course along with the other students of the same batch and that the shortfall in attendance in solely due to the delay of the University in giving admission, and therefore, for reasons completely beyond the control of the petitioner. The University, is therefore, bound to condone the shortfall in attendance if it is within the permissible limits. It appears to me that the attitude of the University which has caused the shortfall in attendance is to utilise the said shortfall to deny the right of the petitioner to sit for the examination on completion of the course by incorrectly stating that the training period of three years is not over ignoring the fact that the petitioner has undergone the training along with the other students from the date of the admission and the shortfall is only in attendance and not in the duration of the course. I have to strongly deprecate this attitude of the University which borders on contempt of Court as it is designed to deny the fruits of litigation to the petitioner.

6. The third objection was that the Government has issued an order granting leave of three years absence to the petitioner, who is an inservice candidate for completing the course and the said three years spreads upto June, 1998, and therefore, it had recognised even by the Government that the period of course, so far as the petitioner is concerned, went beyond September, 1997. I am unable to accept this contention. The leave of absence has been given to complete the course of study and it cannot be turned around to argue that because a longer period of absence has been given, the period of study also will be extended beyond the duration of usual course applicable to the 1993-94 batch.

7. The last objection taken by the learned Counsel for the University is that the period of training undergone in the diploma course cannot be counted for this course. The petitioner has not pleaded for such set off. All that the petitioner wants is that she must be allowed to sit for the examination along with the 1993-94 batch of students as she was admitted to that batch and completed the course along with the other students. I see no justification for the University to single her out and prevent her from writing the examination along with the other students of the same batch. The University requires her to sit for the examination in the next year as if she had been admitting in the next batch. But having admitted her in 1993-94 batch, it is not possible for the University to contend that the duration of the course for her alone goes beyond the duration of the course for the 1993-94 batch to which she belongs.

8. Since 1 do not find any valid objection by the University to deny the right of the petitioner to sit for the examination along with the 1993-94 batch. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is wholly unreasonable and invalid. It is, accordingly set aside. It is stated that the last date for giving application and paying the fees is today. Inasmuch as the case has been decided only at 3.00 p.m. today, and ensuing three day's are holidays, I direct the University to accept the application and the fee if presented on or before 19-8-1997. The condonation for shortage in attendance shall also be entertained and granted. The petitioner shall be allowed to sit for examination if she has 75 per cent minimum attendance.

9. With this direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.