1 THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).Nos.13166 to 13171 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 Arun.A.Rose : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13166 of 2011 Aakash S. Menon : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13167 of 2011 Roshna Subair : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13168 of 2011 R. Visaka : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13169 of 2011 Subhasree : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13170 of 2011 M.M.Shah : Petitioner in WP(MD)Nos. 13171 of 2011 Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Medical Council of India, Rep. by its Chairman, Sector VIII, New Delhi. 3.Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Rep. by its Registrar, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32. 4.The Controller of Examination, Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 32. 5.The Dean, Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kanyakumari. : Respondents in all the Writ Petitions PRAYER in all Writ Petitions: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Notification in Rc.No.ACAD-1(3)/18100/10, dated 14.01.2011 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the fourth respondent to reassess the first year M.B.B.S. Examination results of the petitioner in respect of exams undertaken by the petitioner in August 2011 in conformity with the regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as amended upto November 2010 framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Indian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Medical Council Act, 1956. For Petitioner : M/s.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents 1 & 5 : Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government Pleader For Respondent 2 : Mr.P.Mahendran for Mr.V.P.Raman For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.C.Karthik COMMON ORDER When all these Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on both sides have produced a copy of the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.901 to 909 & Batch of Writ Petitions, wherein it has been observed as follows: "In any event, in view of the decision taken by the University on 08.11.2011, the said batch of writ petitions were permitted to be withdrawn by passing the following order:- When all these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the University, and the learned Advocate General, produced before us a resolution passed by the Special Governing Council of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University in the meeting held on 8th November, 2011, in which it has been decided not to implement the changes in the evaluation pattern of First Year M.B.B.S. Course for the August 2011 examinations. This decision appears to have been taken on the basis of the instructions given by the State Government in their letter dated 04th November, 2011. Learned counsel appearing for the University fairly submitted that the First Year M.B.B.S. Students, who are the examinees of the August, 2011, will be governed by the MCI Regulations. 2. In the aforesaid premises, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in all these writ petitions seek permission to withdraw the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that on the basis of the guidelines issued by the University, those students, who were not allowed to attend the classes or their attendance has not been taken into consideration, shall be deemed to be in attendance/have attended the classes during that period. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 2. Thereafter, while dealing with the merits of the matter it has been held as follows: "49. For all the above reasons, we hold that:- i) The impugned guidelines framed by the appellant University is inconsistent/repugnant to regulation 12(4) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, (as amended upto November 2010). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 ii) The action of the appellant University in introducing the impugned guidelines is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iii) The impugned guidelines has no nexus to the object of enhancing academic standards. 50. Accordingly, writ appeals are dismissed and the batch of writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 3. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Chairman, Medical Council of India, Sector VIII, New Delhi. 3.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32. 4.The Controller of Examination, Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 32. 5.The Dean, Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kanyakumari. SIX CC'S TO MR.M.AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 41434: 1CC TO MR. V.P. RAMAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 41446: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 41457: DM::2012:JANUARY:03:: Order made in W.P.(MD).Nos.13166 to 13171 of 2011 Dated:- 24.11.2011 3P:14CC'S https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/