Maharashtra University Of Health ... vs Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors

2. The appellant-University (referred as 'the University') was established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The private respondents ('students' for short) are prosecuting MBBS course in different Medical Colleges affiliated to the University. They appeared for the III MBBS Part II examination conducted by the University in December, 2005. The subjects were General Medicine, General Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Paediatrics. The results were published on 18.2.2006. The students were shown as having failed in one or more subjects and as a consequence, as having failed in the examination. Feeling aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. They contended that the standards or criteria for passing adopted by the University were contrary to the MCI Regulations; that on the marks obtained by them, they ought to have been declared as having passed in the subjects; and that the University had shown them as 'failed' by applying Clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002 which wrongly interpreted clauses (2) and (4) of Regulation 12 of the MCI Regulations. They, therefore, sought a declaration that clauses 56(2) and 57 of the University Ordinance 1 of 2002 and the consequential University Notification No.5 of 2006 dated 20.2.2006 were illegal and ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, that is Regulation 12 of MCI Regulations framed under section 33 of the said Act. They also sought a direction for re-determination of their results in the failed subjects by applying and adopting the procedure prescribed in regulation 12 of MCI Regulations and declare them as having passed in the subject/s and consequently the examination. In the said writ petitions, the University, the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) and the Medical Colleges were impleaded as respondents.

3. The High Court allowed the writ petitions by common judgment dated 23.6.2006. It held that clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1 of 2002 is illegal and void being inconsistent with and violative of MCI Regulation 12. It also held that MCI Regulation No.12(4) will have to be read and understood in the manner clarified by MCI, in its letter dated 17.9.2002. It directed the University to recalculate the marks based on the MCI's clarification of its Regulation 12(4). The said decision is challenge by the University in this appeal.

Conclusion :

23. We, therefore, accept the interpretation put forth by the University in respect of MCI Regulation 12 as correct and hold that clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1/2002 are in consonance with clauses (2) and (4) of MCI Regulation 12. We also hold that internal assessment marks cannot be clubbed with University examination (external) marks to ascertain whether a candidate has passed in Theory with orals, and Practicals. We further hold that the clarification given by MCI in its letter dated 17.9.2002 and the clarification in its reply affidavit are contrary to MCI Regulation 12(4). Consequently, a student has to secure marks as follows to pass in a subject :

25. We allow this appeal accordingly and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 of the Bombay High Court. In view of what is stated in the earlier para, all applications for intervention/impleading are rejected, as redundant. Parties to bear their respective costs.