IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 697 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2009 in WP NO : 4967 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha D/o. Dr. Vadrevu Ravi R/o. H.No. 21-1-24, Jawahar Street, Salipeta, Kakinada, E.G. District. 2 Sandeep Nadella S/o. Narayana Murthy R/o.Flat No. 301, Chittoori Mansion Apartments, H.No. 47-2-9, Gandhipuram-I, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 3 G.S.L. Medical College Rep. by its Principal Lakshmipuram, Rajanagaram, Rajahmundry - 533 294. 4 The Professor & Head of the Department Pediatrics Department, G.S.L. Medical College, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : MR.G.VIDYA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: MR.CH. DHANAMJAYA The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 697 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 01-05-2009 passed in WPMP.No. 12417 of 2009 in WP.No.4967 of 2009 by the learned single Judge of this court, whereby the learned single directed to declare the result of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Paediatrics (Theory and Practical) examinations and issue necessary certificate and the certificate so issued shall be subject to the approval that may be granted by the Medical Council of India. 2. When the matter came up for admission, Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, the learned standing counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health and Sciences contended that as per Regulation No.12 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 framed by the Medical Council of India under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, 75 % attendance in each subject is compulsory for any student to get qualify to appear in professional examinations and that the performance in essential component of training are to be assessed based on the attendance put in by candidate, which should be essential at 75 %. For the sake of convenience, Regulation No.12 of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 is extracted hereunder: 12. Examination Regulations: Essentialities for qualifying to appear in professional examinations. The performance in essential components of training are to be assessed based on attendance. (1) Attendance : 75% of attendance in a subject for appearing in the examination is compulsory provided he/she has 80% attendance in non-lecture teaching i.e., seminars, group discussions, tutorials, demonstrations, practicals, hospital (Tertiary, Secondary, Primary) postings and bed side clinics, etc. 3. The learned standing counsel for the appellant-university vehemently argued that the said Regulation made by the Medical Council of India are statutory in nature and are binding on the University as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PREETI SRIVASTAVA V/s. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [1]. He further argued that the University does not have any power to condone the shortage of attendance, which is in fact is not the spirit of the Regulations made by the Medical Council of India and in a way result in dilution of the standards of Medical Education. Moreover, the report submitted by the Principal, Siddhardha Medical College after thoroughly verifying the records of the third respondent-college, discloses the fact that the first respondent does not possess requisite attendance, and therefore, is ineligible to write Paediatrics (Theory and Practical) examinations concerned. Further the learned single Judge failed to see that as per the instructions issued by the University the internal assessment marks and attendance, once sent to the University by the respective colleges are final and no changes shall be entertained. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is contrary to the statutory regulations made by the Medical Council of India and the University, and therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order, as no relief could be granted by this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, the learned Govt.Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare submitted that in similar circumstances the Division Bench of this court disposed of WA.No.671 of 2009 and WA.No. 672 of 2009 by judgment dated 20-5-2009. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- university as well as Sri G.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents and Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, the learned for the third and fourth respondents. 6. After hearing both sides, it appears that in similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 671 and 672 of 2009 observed that the learned single Judge has only passed interim order and did not pass any final orders affecting the interest of the appellant, therefore, the Division Bench refrain from going into the merits of the matter and did not see any reason to interfere with the same and disposed of both the writ appeals with a direction to post the matter before the learned single Judge immediately after vacation. 7. It is relevant to extract the text of the judgment dated 20-5-2009 passed by the Division Bench in WA.Nos. 671 and 672 of 2009, which is as hereunder: The only grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that even before filing of the counter affidavit, the learned single Judge passed the impugned order directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 herein to declare the result of the respondent - writ petitioner in Gynecology (Theory and Practical Examinations) of the final year MBBS held in the month of March, 2009 and to issue necessary certificate and observed that the certificate so issued shall be subject to the approval of the Medical Council of India. Since the learned single Judge has only passed interim order and did not pass any final orders affecting the interest of the appellant, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. At this stage, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would file vacate stay application along with the counter seeking to vacate the said interim order. In view of the same, we refrain from going into the merits of the case. Registry is directed to post the vacate stay application to be filed by the appellant before the learned single Judge immediately after vacation. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8. In terms of the judgment dated 20-5-2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.Nos. 671 and 672 of 2009, this writ appeal is disposed of and the Registry is directed to list WP.No.4967 of 2009, WP.No.5187 of 2009, WP.No.5174 of 2009 and connected batch matters before the appropriate Court having provision to hear the subject matter for final hearing on 10-6-2009 on the top of the list. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI _____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-6-2009. I s L [1] ) AIR 1999 SC 2894