Steffy Francisca D Souza v. The Union Of India And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1103/2023 [IA NO: CAN/2/2024, CAN/4/2024] Steffy Francisca D Souza Vs.

The Union of India and Others Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Adharsh Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...... for the respondent nos,2,3,9&10 Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondent Nos.4&5 February 05, 2025 [SR] Item no. 2 1.

The petitioner is a student of MBBS Course which commenced in 2019. First year final MBBS examination in which petitioner participated was held in January, 2021 where petitioner was not declared successful which resulted in participation of petitioner subsequent supplementary examinations on four occasions which were held in July, 2021, March, 2022, October, 2022 and July, 2023.

2.

It needs to be recorded herein that in these examinations in two subjects, the petitioner was declared successful but in one subject, the petitioner could not pass.

3.

By presenting this writ petition, prayer is made to declare the petitioner being a successful candidate on applying methodology as contained in notification dated 1st September, 2023 which is a corrigendum issued by the National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NMC") amending page

58 of Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) Guidelines.

4.

It is also submitted that there was a notification dated 1st August, 2023 in connection with CBME Guidelines which was further amended vide said notification dated 1st September, 2023 and according to the petitioner, if the methodology of the said notification dated 1st September, 2023 is applied in the case of petitioner, she would have been declared successful in her 5th attempt to clear first year MBBS final examination. 5.

In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court dated 23rd January, matter of The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry vs. Megha Maria Joe and others.

6.

Another limb of submission made on behalf of the petitioner is relevant notification was issued on 1st September, 2023 whereas result of the petitioner was published on 11th September, 2023, therefore right is accrued in favour of the petitioner to get the benefit of the said notification. 7.

It is also submitted that the petitioner participated in the supplementary examination of July, 2023 which was her fifth attempt and if she is declared unsuccessful, petitioner shall be debarred from pursuing MBBS course.

8.

The case made out in the writ petition is opposed by the learned advocates representing the NMC and the respondent nos.2,3, 9 & 10 being the medical college authority namely Andaman and Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences, Port Blair (ANIIMS).

9.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate representing the medical college submits that examination was held in July, 2023 i.e prior to issuance of notification dated 1st September, 2023 which prevents the petitioner from getting the benefit of the methodology as contained in the said notification in order to declare the petitioner as successful candidate. 10.

According to medical college authority, mere declaration of result on 11th September, 2023, which is after the relevant notification dated 1st September, 2023 does not make the petitioner eligible to get the benefit of such notification. 11.

Precisely it is also the stand of the NMC as pointed out in reference to the relevant paragraphs in the affidavit-inopposition filed in this matter. In support of such contention reliance is placed on a judgment of a coordinate bench of Kerala High Court dated 24th May, 2024 in the case of Navaneeth V and others vs. Kerala University of Health Science and others wherein, according to the respondents, it has been held in paragraph 18 that norms cannot be applied to the students who have already taken the examination and whose results have already been announced.

12.

It is submitted in reference to the judgment in Navaneeth V. (supra) that after participating in the examination issuance of notification dated 1st September, 2023 cannot make the situation different on ascribing retrospective effect of the said notification dated 1st September, 2023 which would lead to a chaotic situation and the college authority vis-à-vis university in that event would be required to change the results of many students and settled position would be unsettled.

13.

In consideration of the issue involved in this writ petition and taking note of the judgments relied upon by the learned advocates representing the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner though participated supplementary examination held in July, 2023 which was her fifth attempt but the result was declared on 11th September, 2023 i.e after issuance of corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023. 14.

Question arises for consideration whether declaration of result after the said corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 would enure to the benefit of the petitioner in declaring her as successful candidate or not.

15.

On examination of the issue, it appears that in Navaneeth V (supra) a coordinate bench of Kerala High Court expressed view that the effect of the said notification dated 1st September, 2023 need not be extended if examination was held prior to the date of notification dated 1st September, 2023, in the context that the examination was held in February, 2023 and the result was published on 10th May, 2023. Therefore, in the facts of the case which was considered in Navaneeth V (supra), it is found that not only examination was held prior to the date of corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 but the result was also published before 1st September, 2023 and in the event benefit of said corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 would have been extended in that case, certainly, effect would have been topsy-turvy.

16.

But in the present case, though examination was held prior to 1st September, 2023 i.e in the month of July, 2023 but

the result was published on 11th September, 2023 after the corrigendum was issued on 1st September, 2023. 17.

This Court also finds supports from the observations made by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University (supra) wherein in paragraph 15 it has been held that when two interpretations are possible, courts are expected to lean in favour of weaker sections and students were found as weaker parties in between two litigating parties in that case. 18.

The view subscribed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court needs to be relied upon in the present case in the backdrop of the facts that the result was published on 11th September, 2023 which is after the date of corrigendum i.e. 1st September, 2023. Moreover if the petitioner is declared unsuccessful, in her 5th attempt in that event she would be debarred from prosecuting her studies under MBBS course. 19.

From the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it also does not appear that in the event favourable interpretation as ascribed so far corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 is concerned which ultimately would declare the petitioner to be a successful candidate in connection with her participation in supplementary examination held in July, 2023 and that would not lead to a chaotic situation or it will not unsettle the settled position so far declaration of result of supplementary examination which was held in July, 2023, is concerned.

20.

If today, benefit of corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 is not granted to the petitioner, a situation would be

created that the students who got the benefit of corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court passed in Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University (supra) who are already declared successful but in contradistinction thereto the petitioner who is undergoing MBBS course under same university i.e Pondicherry University would be declared unsuccessful, on denial of application of same provision in her case.

21.

In view of the aforesaid scenario, this Court directs the concerned respondent authorities to give benefit of corrigendum dated 1st September, 2023 in favour of the petitioner and on application of such methodology as contained in the said corrigendum if the petitioner is found successful, she shall be declared a candidate who passed supplementary examination held in July, 2023 by fortnight from the date of communication of this order.

22.

In view of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition and connected applications, if pending, are disposed of. 23.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )