Dismissed

Najiya Mahamad Yurfan Tamboli Choudhari v. the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Nov 2014WP/9775/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners admitted to a dental course in 2010-11 and 2011-12 challenged the university's refusal to grant them further attempts for first-year exams after exhausting six attempts. The Court examined DCI regulations and prior orders, finding no rule or reasonableness for extending attempts further.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were not directed to participate in the examination by granting one more attempt. Writ petitions dismissed.

Najiya Mahamad Yurfan Tamboli Choudhari Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp9775-9955-10005.14.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9775 of 2014

¶5

Najiya Mahamad Yurfan Tamboli Choudhari ... Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9955 of 2014

¶6

Kiran Vijay Rathod ... Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others ... Respondents Mr. A.B. Tajane for the petitioners. Mr. Sachin Shetye for respondent no.1 University. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10005 of 2014

¶8

Sonal Ganesh Abhang ... Petitioner V/s. The Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others ... Respondents Mr. Nitin S. Parkhe for the petitioners. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for respondent no.1 University. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

¶9

wp9775-9955-10005.14.sxw

¶10

2/4

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ .

¶12

13th November , 2014.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The petitioner Najiya (in WP No. 9775/14) was admitted in the first year dental course in the academic year of 2011-12 in respondent college and the petitioner Kiran (in WP No. 9955/14) was admitted in the first year dental course in the academic year of 2010-11 in respondent college. Inspite of attempting for six times they could not get through the B.D.S. course.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent college admitted the students in the second year. The respondent University refused permission to these petitioners for appearance in the first year subjects. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on two orders passed by this Court (Anoop V. Mohta & F.M. Reis, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 8051/2014 on 11/9/2014 and in Writ Petition No.9338/2014 (Anoop V. Mohta & A.S. Gadkari, JJ) on 10/10/2014 (at pages 22 and 25 of the petition, exhibit K collectively) wherein by way of ad-interim relief the petitioners were permitted to appear for the first year B.D.S. examination in the 7th attempt. It is further submitted that as the students appearing in the earlier academic year 2007-08, 2009-10 were granted extension, the petitioners be granted extension and allowed to participate in the examination. Learned Counsel further submitted that when the petitioners were admitted in the first year course they were not made aware that they shall have to pass the first year of B.D.S. course within three years (six attempts).

¶17

3/4

¶18

wp9775-9955-10005.14.sxw

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 University submits that in the aforesaid writ petitions the Health University was not heard when the orders were passed. Learned Counsel submits that when the petitioners were admitted in the first year B.D.S. course in the year 2011-12 and in the year 201011 the available rule framed by the Dental Council of India was to the effect that petitioners had to pass the first year B.D.S. course within three years (six attempts). Therefore, the University refused examination forms to the students.

¶20

In the Writ Petition No. 10005/2014 of Sonal Abhang, it is the petitioner's case that she was admitted in the first year course in the academic year 2009-10. By an examination notification no. 18/2013 attempts were extended from Summer 2012 to Summer 2014 meaning thereby that though the petitioners were to complete the first year B.D.S. course within three years of their admission from the academic year 2009-10 the attempts were extended upto Summer 2014. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not get through B.D.S. course, therefore, a further attempt be permitted and petitioner be allowed to participate in the examination.

¶21

We have perused the earlier orders passed by this Court and examination notification no. 18/2013. The said notification was issued as per Revised B.D.S. Course Regulations, 2007 of the Dental Council of India. In case of first two writ petitioners the rule framed by the Dental Council of India was that they were to pass examination within three years (six attempts). The petitioners request that as students who were admitted in the year 2007 to 2008 were permitted extension, petitioners shall also be permitted extended attempts.

¶22

We do not find any rule or concession framed by the Dental Council of

¶23

4/4 wp9775-9955-10005.14.sxw

¶24

Indian granting further extension to the petitioners or identically situated candidates.

¶25

In case of petitioner Sonal in Writ Petition No. 10005/14 the record reflects that petitioner exhausted the attempts and still could not get through the first year B.D.S. course. We do not find any reasonability to interfere and direct the University to permit the students to participate in the first year examination by granting one more attempt.

¶26

In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Aforesaid Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶27

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Najiya Mahamad Yurfan Tamboli Choudhari v. the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najiya Mahamad Yurfan Tamboli Choudhari v. the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Aiman Md. Aleem Dandu, through Father, Shri. Md. Aleem Ahmedsab Dandu Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development and Ors.

Sarang Seva Santha and Anr. Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai

Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Tagare and Ors. Vs Mr. Rajiv Madhav Madane and Anr.

Kiran Vijay Rathod Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Anil Deoram Hinde and Ors. Vs Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik and Ors.

Sonal Ganesh Abhang Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.