424 e4 1 1 0 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPeAe Noe736 of2010 DateofDecision August13 2010 Dr Kranti Gargand another Appellants Versus StateofPunjaband others C 0 CORAM 2 HONBLE MR JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGALCHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE TPS MANN E 1 WhetherReporters of Iocalpapersmay be allowed to see the 2 Whether to be referred to theReporters or not2 3eWhether thejudgmentshouldbe reported in the Digest7 Z Present Mr Ashok SharmaNabhewalaAdvocate for the Ms Madhu DayalAdditionalAdvocate GeneralPunjab I Mr Gaurav Goel Advocate for 021 Mr AnupamGuptaAdvocate for Farid University MUKUL MUDGAL CeJe Ill 1 This appealchallenges the judgmentof leamed Single Judgedated 133201 0 by which the writ petition81ed by the was dismissed The facts of the case brieflystatedare that 6 all the were Post GraduateStudentsofBaba Farid University of Health Sciences They had appliedfor Post GraduateCourses in responseto the prospectusin PGE12007 The first counselling was to be held in the month ofMay 2007 but Olingof the writ petitions111 this Court resulted in postponementof the Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 425 1 d 0 LePA Noe736 of2010 2r from time to time and eventually one of the parties theorders before the Honble Supreme Court and pursuantto the Honble Courts order in SLP6CivilNo 10374 of 2007 decided on 1162007 8esh counselling was done on 12772007 and 13772007 The second was fixed on 782007 which againresulted in lingof 0 otherwrit petitions and eventually due to thependency of such petitions and 0 orders passedtherein the third counselling was held onlybetween the monthsof October and December 2007 The herein are the writ who fell within the block of October to December 2007 and I underwentthe 3 counselling and have filed this appealagainstthe Z judgmentof leamed SingleJudgewhich upheIdthe decision of the t Committeeconstitutedbythe Vice Chancellorwhich reads as followse 08 41Aftergoingthroughthe record it was observed that the admissionof PG in the year 2007 started in Februaryand extendedto December 2007 The matter was deliberated ln detail Keepingin view the extendedadmissionscheduleand to gillebeneflt to the maxunum studentsit was decided to conduct the examinationof PG studentsof 2007 batchas Om under I9May 2010Covering students admitted upto 31 July 2002 IDOctober 2010Coveringstudents admitted upto 31 December 2007 2 This led to the decision of the Universitycommunicatedto all Collegeswhich readsas underl A9 MBBS Final Prof PartJ Examinatione2010 Not to prepone the examinations and the Universityshould adhereto theschedulealreadyin vogue Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 426 A 0 LPA No 736 of2010 3 B9 PG OvIAiplS9 Examinations03atch20071 To conduct the examincztionsof PG studentsof Batcl2007 as under a9 May 312007 b Octobev 201 students admitted upto 312007 In this regard you are to send the 1 oftheeligiblePG studentsadmittedupto 312007 for Maune 2010 and upto 31 2007 for October 2010 examinations as per 0 examinationschedulegivenbel0w7 r T IWithout latelWithlatefeeiWithlatefeeWithlatefee 1fee ofR2001 jofRs001 iofRs5001 e T 1 I March l March 15 March 31 April15 5 Sept15 Sept30 Oct 15 Oct31 1 Z For October2010 Examinations 2 TheExamination scheduleshall be intimatedlater on tr SdlController I 2512110 a5 3 The learned SingleJuligehas upheldthe decision of the Universityfor holdingexaminationson different dates between the two blocks of studentplacingreliance on the MCI Regulations which Qm an academicterm ofsix monthsandthe numberofexaminationsuptotwo in a year for any subjectwith an interval of not less than four and not more than six months between the two examinations The leamed SingleJudge also relied upon the decision ofthe Supreme Court Oxingtime limits as per Mridul Dhar inor and another V Union 4India and others 00592 Supreme Court Cases 65 and Medical Council of India V Madhu Singh and others 200297 Supreme Court Cases 258 Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 427 LPA No 736 of2010 m4 4 In the case of Medical Council of Indias case 6supralthe HonbleSupreme Court held as under 23 There is however a necessityfor the time schedulefor the course and fixingthe periodduringwhich admissions can take place makingit clear that no admission can be grantedafterthe scheduled m datewhich essentially should be thedateforcommencement C ofthecourse In conclusion 6i1There is no scopefor studentsmidstreamas that 0 would be againstthe very spirit of statutes governing medical education 0i1Evenif seats are that cannot be a groundfor mciking midsession admissions cannot be telescoping of unftlledseats of one year I with seats ofthe year hMCI shall ensure that the examiningbodies fu a time Z schedulespecifjing the duration of this course the date of commencementof the course and the last date for 7 admission7 vDifrent modalitiesfor admission can be worked out and stepslike holdingof examination if prescribed and the like have to be within the 025 specified time vONovariation of the scheduleso far as admissions are concernedshall be allowed 6vii9In case ofanydeviation bythe institutionconcerned action isprescribed shall be takenbyMCl It Qm 5 In Mridul Dharcase supralthe Honble Supreme Court held asunder 3 Hauingregardto the afovesaidwe issue the followingdirections 1 XXXX 2 AXX 3XXXX 4 It shall be the ofall concerned including Chief Secretaries of each StatelUnion Territory andlor Health Secretariesto ensure complioncewith the directions of this Court and requisitetime Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 428 0 6 LPA No 736 of2010 5e scheduleas laid down in the and would makethem liable for requisite penalconsequences 5 ErA 6 By31 October the States throughtheChief SecretarieslHealthSecretariesshall flle a reportin regardto admissions with the DGHS givingdetails about the adherence to a time scheduleand admissiongranted as per 1 the quota The recalcitrant States particularlyoicers personallywill have to 0 facetheconsequencesfor violation 7 to 14 XXXX 15Time scheduleprovidedin the Regulations shall be strictlyadheredto byaU concerned failingwhich the party would be liable to bepersonallyproceeded with 16opy of thejudgmentshall be sent to the ChiefSecretariesof all the StatesIUnion Z Territoriesfor compliance r2 L 6 The leamedSingleJudgehasupheld thepleaof the University er to adlnit studentsand decided to conduct all the examinationsof candidates 08 whose admissionstook placeupto31007 in MaylJune2010 and those 4r admitted thereafter 1e from P August2007 upto 312007 in October 2010 to complywith the mandateof the MCl rules The leamedSingle C1 Judgehas also held that the who were admittedaer 313007 but betweenOctoberandNovember 2007 could not be permiued to appear alongwith those who were admittedupto3132007 Fresh studentssimilar totheappellants thereafter could have completed onlytwo and a half years course by October 2010 and can not claim paritywith those who were admittedupto31 Jllly2007 7e The main thrust of the case set up by the was that Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 429 9 e 1 LPAe Noe 736 of2010 r thereis no justification in denyingpermission to the to appear with the remaining studentsadmittedin the block towards the end of year In our view the decisionof the University cannot be faulted to create two blocks one block of students who were admitted in block endingby31 2007 and the second for the studentsadmiued in August 1 to December 2007 The Universitys stand is not onlyin consonance 0 with the of the MCI requiring3 years course to be completed before the final examinationbut also is basedon a reasonable classification oftwo groupscreated ie thosewho were admittedon or I before 315 July2007 and those admittedfrom lS August2007 to 31 Z December 2007 The acceptanceof the pleaof the which 1S 2 based on the premise that when theywere admitted the classesfor the Z 1 group of studentshad not started would deprivethe University to a3 make this reasonableclassiflcationof two groups of students If the appealwasto be acceptedbythe same logic studentsadmittedin mid October or November also oughtto be giventhe similar chance Om we see no reason to interferewith the of learned SingleJudgeand theappealis therefore dismissed r CHlEF JUSTICE August13 2010 JUDGE ajarl l Rashmi 2014.07.09 14: 16 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document