IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009 Date of decision:25.03.2009 Upinder Singh and others ...Petitioners versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ...Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate with Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.4 Ms. Manpreet S.Longia, Advocate for respondent No.6 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.KANNAN, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner's counsel restricts his arguments and seeks for adjudication only with regard to the prayer for conducting a supplementary examination forthwith so that they become eligible to compete for entry into post graduate courses (MD/MS) after the completion of one year of apprenticeship that would follow the completion of MBBS course. C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009 - 2 - 2. The admitted case is that the persons who have approached this Court have failed in one or more subjects in the final MBBS course, in the examination held in November-December 2008. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers me to Regulation No.7(7) of the Medical Council of India Regulations which reads as under :- “Supplementary examination may be conducted within six months so that the students who pass can join the main batch and the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year.” 3. The construction which the counsel for the petitioners places on the regulation is that the supplementary examination shall be held expeditiously so that the failed candidates will better the chances by qualifying for appearing in post graduate courses in 2010 and for that to happen, they should have one year of apprenticeship after the completion of MBBS course. This will happen only if the supplementary examination is held and results are published before April 2009. The University has filed a short written statement and it relies on the very same provision referred to above to make a construction that six months period is an outer limit to provide for sufficient time to conduct the examinations which ought to go through several formalities. According to him, it is not feasible for the University to conduct the examination immediately and the earliest they do is only to fix the supplementary examination to take place by May-June 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a recent precedent of 2008 when on a similar occasion, the University conducted C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009 - 3 - a supplementary examination immediately after the results were published when the failed candidates could again take the supplementary exam and could avail the facility to be qualified for joining the post graduate courses. 5. The conduct of supplementary examination involves a process. It is not one single and of conducting an examination but to conduct it, it will have to take within its fold preparation of question papers by entrusting the job to the competent persons, working out the time schedule for the exams which shall not clash with other examinations, provision for invigilation, correction of papers and making arrangements for viva voce by persons who can competently handle an oral test. It shall normally be left to the wisdom to the University to prescribe the date to regulate their own functions. Unless the conduct is patently arbitrary and capricious, there is hardly a scope for the Court to dictate to the University a time schedule in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. It will be a risky exercise for the Court to breathe down the affairs of the University just in order to please some of the students. While the grievance of the petitioners who are aspirants to higher courses could not be turned as outlandish, it will have to still stand within the realms of control of the University. The University hardly requires any sagacious counsel from Courts when it could normally be believed that University has the best of guidance of its own academician and persons who have the students' interests in their hearts and soul. C.W.P. No.1406 of 2009 - 4 - 6. Under the circumstances, it is difficult, nay improper, to intervene on behalf of the students and mandate the University to prescribe the time schedule in the manner just sought for the petitioners. 7. Revision petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.03.2009 sanjeev