* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + WRIT PETITION Nos.8600, 8800 & 8603 of 2009 % Dated 03.12.2009 # Dr.G.Supriya, D/o.Sri G.Ramesh, aged about 30 years, R/o.Behind Gandhi General Hospital, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad And others …Petitioners V. $ Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, rep by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh And another. …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, Advocate Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate ^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.V.Nagarjuna Babu, Advocate < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.8600, 8800 & 8603 of 2009 WRIT PETITION No.8600 of 2009 BETWEEN: Dr. G. Supriya …Petitioner AND Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences And another …Respondents WRIT PETITION No.8800 of 2009 BETWEEN: R.Swetha …Petitioner AND Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences And another …Respondents WRIT PETITION No.8603 of 2009 BETWEEN: Dr.Guthikonda Jaya Prakash …Petitioner AND Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 8600, 8800 & 8603 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The subject matter of these three writ petitions is similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in W.P.No.8600 of 2009 and W.P.No.8800 of 2009 are referred to as petitioners 1 and 2 and the petitioner in W.P.No.8603 of 2009 is referred to as the 3rd petitioner. Petitioners 1 and 2 were admitted to the first year of M.D.(Anatomy) and M.D. (General Medicine) courses respectively in Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, in the academic year 2006–2007. The 3rd petitioner was admitted into the first year of M.D.(Physiology) course in the same academic year in the Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal. All the courses are spread over a period of 3 years. Both the colleges are affiliated to Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (‘the University’, for brevity). Examination is held by the end of the course. The study comprises mostly of interaction with the professors and is in a way different from the ordinary classroom study. The examinations for the petitioners were to commence from 28.04.2009. The petitioners paid examination fee and their applications were forwarded by the respective colleges to the University. The cut-off date for the course i.e., completion of three years, is notified as 10.08.2008. Through separate letters dated 15.04.2009, the University raised objection as regards the eligibility of the petitioners to take the examination. It is mentioned that the petitioner 1 and 2 would complete their study on 12.09.2009 and 20.09.2009 respectively. As regards the 3rd petitioner, it was mentioned that his attendance in the first year is only 60%. On behalf of the petitioners 1 and 2, it was stated that both of them availed maternity leave of 120 days during the course and that the 3rd petitioner has availed sick leave of 30 days, for which they are entitled to under the relevant rules. Since they were not permitted to appear in the examination, they approached this Court through these writ petitions. The petitioners contend that even according to the rules of admission, women candidates are entitled to avail maternity leave of 120 days, and male candidates shall be entitled to avail sick leave of 30 days. It is urged that mere availment of leave does not disentitle the petitioners to appear the examination, though the rules mandate that results would be declared only after the completion of stipulated length of course. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavits are filed, re-stating the rule position and attempting to sustain their action. Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for the petitioners 1 and 2, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for 3rd petitioner and Sri B.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel representing the respondents. The postgraduate medical courses stand on a slightly different footing, in the context of the method of instructions and requirements as to attendance. It is already mentioned that the study is somewhat different from the routine classroom teaching. For the most part of it, it is an interactive and informal study of a superior order. That is why, neither there is a requirement to appear in the examination at any intervals during the course, nor there exist any rules of promotion. Once a candidate is admitted, he has to take examination only at the end of the course. The admission rules contain the provisions as regards attendance. Rules 10.4, 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 are relevant for this purpose. They read as under. 10.4: Attendance: Candidates selected for the various courses should be the whole time students. Service candidates will have to apply for leave to prosecute their studies and are required to produce the leave sanction order from the competent authority not later than three months after joining the course. The candidate is required to put in a minimum of 80% attendance during each calendar year for being eligible to appear for the examination. In the year, all 365 days will be considered as working days and students should get 80% attendance each year separately to get eligibility for appearing for University exams. The remaining days of absence (including maternity leave) will be considered for extension. Only after completion of extension period, the results will be declared. 10.5.1: Leave: Each year students will be permitted to avail 30 days leave. No Post Graduate is allowed to go on leave more than 8 days at a stretch. No other leave is permitted. 10.5.2: Maternity Leave: Women student are eligible for maternity leave for 120 days only once in their P.G. course of study and the study period will be extended. From the perusal of these rules, it is clear that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to avail maternity leave of 120 days and the 3rd petitioner is entitled for leave up to a maximum of 30 days. The respective principals certified that the petitioners have availed their leaves, strictly in accordance with the relevant rules. Once the rules permit leave up to a particular duration, the 1st respondent cannot deny permission to the petitioners to appear in the examination. Totally different things would have ensued, had the absence of the petitioners been unauthorized or exceeded the permissible limits. If the leave period is treated as absence and the petitioners are treated as ineligible, the very provision contained in the rules, conferring the benefit of leaves, would be defeated. The University has also framed rules, which are to the effect that in case a candidate did not put in the required amount of attendance up to the stipulated completion of course, that would only enable them to delay of declaration of results, till the deficit period is compensated by further attendance. In other words, if there is a shortage of 30 days for completion of course, a candidate would be permitted to take the examination, but results would be declared only after he puts in the required amount of attendance beyond the stipulated date. Viewed from that angle also, the petitioners have compensated that deficit by further attendance. The petitioners have already been permitted to appear in the examination, in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court. Now they have to be issued the Provisional Certificate and other relevant documents. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondents to publish the results of the petitioners, if not already done, and to issue Memorandum of Marks, Provisional Certificate etc., for the respective courses studied by them. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 03, 2009 BVV Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (B/O) BVV