IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1803 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 4108 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1803 of 2001 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meenakumari) The present writ appeal is filed against order dated 02-11- 2001 passed in WP.No. 4108 of 2001 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned Judge disposed of the said writ petition, which was filed to declare the action of the respondents in constituting petitioners and other similarly placed persons who passed Phase-I MBBS course in supplementary examination (July 2000) as a separate batch for Phase-II MBBS course as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Regulation 7 (7) of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and to issue consequential directions to integrate petitioners and others who passed phase-I MBBS course in supplementary examination (July 2000) along with the main/regular batch (1998) in Phase-II MBBS course or in the alternative to permit the petitioners and others to take Phase-II MBBS course examination along with main/regular batch (1998). 2. The case of the petitioners is that they appeared for the EAMCET 1998 conducted in May 1998 and became eligible for admission to first year MBBS course scheduled to be commenced in August, 1998. However, the counseling for admission was taken up by the Convenor only in December 1998 and the petitioners and others secured admission in the respondents 2 to 10 Medical Colleges on the basis of their merit and ranking and they joined the course on payment of necessary fees. The first semester for the said batch of 1998 commenced w.e.f. 11-1-1999. The examinations for the first phase of the course which consists of two semesters were held between 14-2-2000 and 14-3-2000. The petitioners along with other students appeared for the examination consisting of six papers and three practical examinations in respect of three subjects. The results were declared on 7-5-2000. However, the petitioners and some other students could not succeed in all the subjects of the first phase. Therefore, the petitioners and other students who could not pass all the subjects appeared for the supplementary examination held on 10-7-2000. The results of supplementary examination were declared in August 2000 and the petitioners and others have cleared all the backlog papers. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join Phase-II of the course along with the main batch on the ground that they cleared the backlog subjects of phase-I in the supplementary examination and they were taken up as a separate batch. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the above writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, the main contention of the petitioners is that the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 made under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 do not contemplate treating the candidates who passed the supplementary examination as a separate batch and as per Regulation 7 (7) they are entitled to join the main batch. It is their contention that though under the Regulations, a pass in the subjects of Phase-I is compulsory before proceeding to Phase-II training, the Supplementary examination are to be conducted in such a manner as to enable the students who passed can also join the main batch. As per Regulation 7 (7) only those students who failed in the supplementary examinations will have to appear in the subsequent year and Regulation 7 (7) does not contemplate treating the students who passed in the supplementary examination as a separate batch. On the other hand, the information furnished by the first respondent - NTR University regarding the main examinations and supplementary examinations conducted to the students of Phase-I of the 1998 batch which shows that the classes for Phase-II were commenced w.e.f. 1-6-2000 for those students who passed phase-I examinations held in February 2000, whereas classes for Phase-II were commenced for the petitioners and others who passed phase-I examination in the supplementary examination w.e.f. 30-9-2000. There is a gap of about four months between the main batch and the supplementary batch in commencing Phase-II classes. But however, the learned single Judge, having gone through the rival contentions has disposed of the main writ petition holding that the petitioners therein and other similarly placed persons who passed Phase-I of the MBBS course in the supplementary examination held in July 2000 cannot be treated as a separate batch and they are entitled to be integrated along with the main/regular batch of 1998. Since the course of study of Phase-II is already over and the examinations of Phase-II for the regular batch have already been conducted, directed the respondents to hold the examinations of Phase-II of MBBS course to the petitioners therein and other similarly placed persons, who passed the subjects of Phase-I in the supplementary examination, at the earliest, preferably before declaring the results of Phase-II examinations of regular batch held in October 2001 and all necessary furthers steps shall be taken expeditiously so that an integrated batch can be commenced in Phase-III of the course. 4. But however, in view of the fact that there is no interim order and the respondents-students have already completed their MBBS course and the writ appeal is filed by the Medical Council of India, represented by its Registrar, Aiwan-e-Ghalib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi, in the year 2001 and during the interregnum the respondents- students have completed their MBBS course, we are of the opinion that no cause of action survives in this writ appeal. 5. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 20-2-2009 I s L