Saurabh Singh v. The National Medical Commission

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR Present : The Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya W.P.A.6 of 2022 Shri Saurabh Singh

Versus

The National Medical Commission and others Mr. Gopal Binnu Kumar, Mr. Sayed E Huda ....for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Singh ... for respondent nos.3 & 4. Ms. Tasmeen ... for respondent no.1. Last heard on :

4.3.2022 Judgment on :

March 10, 2022 Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.:

The petitioner is a student of the Andaman and Niecobar Islands Institute of Medical Science (ANIIMS), Port Blair. The petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination of the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Examination held in 2021 and was declared fail in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction on the respondent/Pondicherry University to make appropriate corrections

in the result of the petitioner uploaded on the website of the University on 23rd December, 2021.

According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner's assessment of marks should have been under the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, as amended until 2018. Counsel submits that if these Regulations were taken into account, the petitioner would not have been declared fail in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Counsel also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Versus Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal: (2007)10 SCC 201 which held, inter alia, that a certain scheme of distribution of marks must be followed in tandem with the Medical Council of India Regulations, particularly, Regulation 12(4). According to counsel, if the MCI Regulations are taken into account, the petitioner would have got 52% instead of 48.46%.

The affidavit-in-opposition of the Pondicherry University states that the University is not bound by the MCI Regulations and reiterates that the petitioner failed to score passing marks in the two subjects.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration is represented and learned counsel submits that no reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner against the Administration.

Upon hearing learned counsel, this court is of the view that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Paryani Mukesh

Jawaharlal (supra) the Pondicherry University does not have any option but to follow the guidelines and the scheme given in the said decision which are in accordance with the MCI Regulations, particularly, Regulation 12(4). The tabulated statement handed up on behalf of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner got more than 35% in the Internals [Theory 18/40)(45%) and Practical 13/30(43.33%)] and was hence eligible for the external examinations. In the external examinations, the petitioner has already obtained 56% in theory (101/180) and 50% (50/100) in practicals. The aforesaid two assessments have been done by the Pondicherry University. The controversy arises from the manner in which the aggregate has been calculated. The University assessment shows that the petitioner got 54.09% (119/220) in theory and 48.

46% (63/130) in practical. However, the calculation of the aggregate in the scheme laid down in Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal (supra) under the MCI Regulations indicates that the aggregate should be 119/220 (54%) taken together with 63/130(48.46%) which is 182/350 which comes to 52%. The petitioner should hence have been declared pass in the assessment of the Pondicherry University in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology paper.

The affidavit-in-opposition of the Pondicherry University makes no reference to the Supreme Court decision in Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal (supra) or the scheme of assessment laid down in the said decision. Several decisions have followed the scheme/guidelines laid

down in Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal (supra) including a decision passed by this court in W.P.251 of 2019 (Shri V. Abhishek Vs. The Medical Council of India and others) along with three other writ petitions on 20th November, 2019. The said order was not challenged by the Pondicherry University and the University subsequently proceeded to correct the marks awarded to the petitioners in that case. This court finds no reasons, factual or otherwise to depart from the ratio in the earlier decision passed by this court in W.P. No.251 of 2019.

By reason of the above, W.P.A.6 of 2022 is allowed in terms of prayer (a). The Pondicherry University is directed to correct the petitioner's marks in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology paper and the marks as uploaded in the website of the Pondicherry University on 23rd December, 2021 within a period of two weeks from date. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)