The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University v. S.S. Rajtilak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10..02..2009C O R A MThe Honourable Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. DhanapalanWrit Appeal No.147 of 2009The Controller of Examinations,The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32... Appellant/1st Respondentversus1.S.S. Rajtilak2.The Principal,White Memorial Homeo Medical College,Attor, Kanyakumari District... Respondents/Petitioner/2nd RespondentPrayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of a learned single Judge of thisCourt dated 21.1.2009 passed in W.P. No.29889 of 2008.WP.No.29889/08 :Petition presented to this Court to issue a Writ ofMandamus calling for the records of the I respondentculminating in an order purporting to reject the petitioner'sapplication for revaluation and direct the 1st respondent torevalue the petitioners answer sheet of obstetrics in terms ofthe petitioner's application dated 22.10.2008. For Appellant : Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mrs. A.L. Ganthimathi.For Respondent-1 : Mr. Harikrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T( Delivered by The Honourable The Acting Chief Justice )The first respondent, S.S. Rajtilak, a IV (Final) Year student ofBachelor of Homeo Medical Sciences (BHMS) Course in the secondrespondent-White Memorial Homeo Medical College, Attoor, KanyakumariDistrict (hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College' for short),appeared for the second time in the III Year Examination, but failed inthe Obstetrics and Gynaecology Paper. He preferred the writ petition,W.P. No.29889 of 2008 for a mandamus on the first respondent in the writpetition, i.e., the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai(hereinafter referred to as the 'University' for short) to re-value hisanswer sheets in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Paper in terms with theapplication preferred by him on 22.10.2008. 2. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 21.1.2009,having noticed the recommendation of the Medical College that the firstrespondent/writ petitioner is a very punctual student and that hisperformance in the department is excellent, directed the University topermit the first respondent/writ petitioner to appear in one arrearpaper in Obstetrics and Gynaecology along with the VII Semester (part ofthe IV Year) Examinations. This gave rise to the present writ appealpreferred by the University.3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University submitted that though there was no such prayer made on behalfof the first respondent/writ petitioner to permit him to appear in theVII Semester (part of the IV Year) Examinations and it was accepted thatthe answer paper of the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot be re-valued, in the facts and circumstances, there was no occasion for thelearned single Judge to direct the University to allow the firstrespondent/writ petitioner to appear in the VII Semester (part of the IVYear) Examinations. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondentproduced before us a format forwarded by the Medical College to theUniversity, wherein under Sl. No.8, the remarks of the Head of theDepartment Professor are shown, to the effect that the first respondentis a very punctual student and his performance in the department isexcellent. Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent/writpetitioner having applied within time, in fact, his prayer for re-valuation of his answer paper should have been accepted. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed therival contentions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The Central Council of Homeopathy, in exercise of the powerconferred by Clauses (i) (j) and (k) of Section 33 and sub-section (i)of Section 20 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, with theprevious sanction of the Central Government, framed the Regulationsrelating to BHMS Examination (hereinafter referred to as the'Regulations' for short). Under Clause 10(i) of the Regulations, nocandidate shall be admitted to the IV Year BHMS Examination unless he /she has passed the III Year BHMS Examination and he / she has therequired attendance as per Regulation 7(iii), to the satisfaction ofthe Head of Homeopathic Medical College.7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Universitybrought to our notice the guidelines prescribed for re-valuation ofanswer papers for all Undergraduate Degree Courses, as per theresolution adopted by the Governing Council of the University in its161st Meeting held on 10.1.2007, the relevant portion of which is quotedhereunder :"(a) The application for revaluation should reach this universitywithin 15 days from the date of receipt of the statement of marksby the college....(c) The revaluation of papers is not permissible, if thecandidates have failed in more than one subject.(d) The revaluation is allowed only if the failure leads to breakof semester/year.(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in guideline (d), therevaluation is allowed in the case of candidates who fail infinal year.(f) The revaluation is not permissible if the candidates havefailed in any subjects including those of previous semesteryears."In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the University hasbrought the following facts to the notice of the Court :"8. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed in 2sessions, i.e. the petitioner has written whole paper in IIIBHMS examination held in February, 2008 but the petitioner hasfailed in Paper 2 Obstetrics & Gynaecology Homeopathic. Againthe petitioner has written paper-2 Obstetrics & GynaecologyHomeopathic in III BHMS examination held in August, 2008 andfailed.9. It is submitted that the petitioner is not eligible forrevaluation of answer paper as per the guidelines (d, e & f)prescribed by this University. The same was also informed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the candidates through the Principal, White Memorial HomoeoMedical College, Attoor vide this University's Letter No.Ex.IV(2)/37061/2008 dated 11.11.2008."8. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the firstrespondent/writ petitioner, having earlier appeared and failed in theObstetrics and Gynaecology Homeopathic Paper in February, 2008 and againhaving appeared and failed in the same subject, i.e., Obstetrics andGynaecology Homeopathic in the examination held in August, 2008, is notentitled for re-valuation of his answer paper in the said subject.9. As the Regulations prohibit even admission of a student in the IVYear BHMS Course without passing the III Year BHMS Course, we hold thatthe first respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to appear in theVII Semester (part of the IV Year) Examinations. Further, no suchprayer having been made by the first respondent/writ petitioner in thewrit petition, without granting the prayer for re-valuation of theanswer paper in question, there was no occasion for the learned singleJudge to direct the University to permit the first respondent/writpetitioner to appear in the VII Semester (part of the IV Year)Examinations.10. It has been brought to our notice that the Medical College, byits letter dated 30.1.2009, has informed that the first respondent/writpetitioner, Rajtilak, having Registration No.58041132, has attended theFinal Year BHMS Course; he has only 42% of attendance in the Final YearBHMS Course; there is arrear of one paper in III Year BHMS Course; andso, he is not eligible for appearing in the Final Year Examinationsscheduled to be held in February, 2009. This Court is informed that theminimum attendance prescribed is 80%, whereas the first respondent/writpetitioner has only 42% of attendance in the Final Year BHMS Course.11. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated21.1.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.29889 of 2008and allow the writ appeal, but there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2009 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarab https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Controller of Examinations,The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32.2.The Principal,White Memorial Homeo Medical College,Attor, Kanyakumari District.1 cc To Mr.Harikrishnan, Advocate, SR.5443.1 cc To Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate, SR.5689.Writ Appeal No.147 of 2009 BV(CO)RVL 17.02.2009