Disposed

Anuradha Kotha v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2024WP/24617/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-availability of clinical and research facilities in her college and sought transfer, fee refund, and inquiry. The Court rejected the transfer plea as barred by Regulation 10 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. Fee refund claim was relegated to civil court due to disputed facts. Liberty granted to make fresh representations.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh representations regarding grievances against Respondents 1 and 3. Fee refund claim relegated to civil court.

Anuradha Kotha Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24617 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ANURADHA KOTHA, W/O RAVI KIRAN KOTHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 59-7-12, ACHARYA RANGGA STREET, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, VIJAYWADA-520 008, ANDHRA PADESH EMAIL: [email protected]

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

[BY SMT. ANURADHA KOTHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON (PH)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041, KARNATAKA. EMAIL: [email protected]

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

2 . RAJA RAJESWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶13

AND HOSPITAL, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL, 202, KAMBIPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 074, KARNATAKA. EMAIL: [email protected]

¶14

3 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, (EARLIER MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077, EMAIL [email protected]

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶17

4 . SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES & RESEARCH, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, 9^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 069. EMAIL: director @jayadevacardiology.com

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

[BY SRI R. GIRISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH); SMT. T.S. ANUPAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R4]

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO R-1 UNIVERSITY, DIRECTING THEM TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CHANGE HER AFFILIATION FROM R-2 COLLEGE TO THE INSTITUTE WHERE SHE WILL BE ABLE TO PURSUE THE WORK PERTINENT TO RESEARCH WORK SUBMITTED AND ALLOW HER TO GAIN RELEVANT CLINICAL AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER LOSS OF TIME. ALSO DIRECT R-1 UNIVERSITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE PETITIONERS RIGHT TO RESIGN FROM THE COLLEGE IF SHE CHOOSES.

¶21

ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO R-3 TO EXAMINE THE PARTICULARS OF THE R-2 COLLEGE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LETTER DATED 07.01.2019 ANNEXURE-K AND EXAMINE IF THE R-2 COLLEGE COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN APPROVAL TO RUN A SUPER SPECIALITY COURSE IN ITS COLLEGE VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶22

ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO R-2 COLLEGE TO RETURN THE TUITION FEES DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER. IN THAT CASE DIRECT THE R-3 TO ASSIGN TO NEW INSTITUTE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

IN LIGHT OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ONLINE RTI PORTAL ANNEXURE-T, TO R-3 ON 24.07.2021 PETITIONER REQUEST THE COURT TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PRESERVE HER RIGHTS TO PURSUE THE MATTER IN FUTURE EVEN IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶29

a. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus or any other Writ to R-1 University, directing them to allow the petitioner to change her affiliation from R-2 college to the institute where she will be able to pursue the work pertinent to research work submitted and allow her to gain relevant clinical and research experience without any further loss of time. Also direct R-1 University to acknowledge petitioners right to resign from the college if she chooses.

¶30

b. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus or any other Writ to R-3 to examine the particulars of the R-2 college in the light of the letter dated 07.01.2019 Annexure-K and examine if the R-2 College could have been granted an approval to run a Super Speciality Course in its College vide Annexure-J.

¶31

c. Issue a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus or any other Writ to R-2 College to return the tuition fees deposited by the petitioner. In that case direct the R-3 to assign to new institute to the petitioner.

¶32

d. In light of RTI Application submitted by petitioner online RTI portal Annexure-T, to R-3 on 24.07.2021 petitioner request the court to permit the petitioner to preserve her rights to pursue the matter in future even if there are changes in circumstances.

¶33

Petitioner - Smt.Anuradha Kotha, party-in-person

¶34

submitted that she was a registered Medical Practitioner with MD degree in Internal Medicine and intended to complete Super-Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology). She submitted that respondent no.2 - Medical College, claimed to be offered said

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶37

Course. She submitted that after completing MBBS Degree from Rangaraya Medical College, Andhra University, she completed MD in Internal Medicine from Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, New York College, University of New York, in year 2000. Thereafter she returned to India and obtained equivalence certificate from Medical Council of India.

¶38

It was submitted that in meanwhile, she was notified for admission to Non-Invasive Cardiology Fellowship in respondent no.4 - Institution. She worked as Fellow in said Institution till August, 2016 and under Provisional Admission Letter, she got admitted to Super-Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology) in respondent no.2 - College during academic year 2016-17. In terms of same, on 29.08.2016, an endorsement was issued by Dean of respondent no.2 – College asking her to report for duty as DM/Senior Resident in Department of Cardiology.

¶39

She further submitted that from September, 2016,

¶40

she began to work on synopsis of thesis by studying in library of respondent no.2 – College and claimed to have prepared synopsis on three topics and sought guidance from Vice Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶43

(‘RGUHS’ for short). In reply, Principal of respondent no.2 – College and HOD of Cardiology Department were asked to examine matter. Thereafter, HOD advised her to submit synopsis on “Coronary Micro-Vascular Dysfunction”.

¶44

It was submitted that topic was a laboratory subject and respondent no.2 – College did not have adequate staff or equipment for research on it. Consequently, her thesis was reduced to an academic exercise. It was further submitted that there were hardly any interventional procedures to provide adequate opportunity to actually perform procedures. At that moment, Dr.H. Venkataramaiah, her guide informed that there were not enough patients either in respondent no.2 – College or even in respondent no.4 – Institution and therefore topic of thesis would not be feasible. Thereafter, she was given topic of ‘ Failed Thrombolysis’ . After research, petitioner submitted synopsis on Failed Thrombolysis, in January, 2017. Same was submitted to respondent no.1 – RGUHS for approval and evidenced by fact that respondent no.2 issued ‘no due certificate’ on 19.05.2017 (Annexure-F).

¶45

Strangely, after taking seven months to review synopsis, RGUHS issued report on registration status of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶48

dissertation topics for academic year 2016-17, showing petitioner’s topic as ‘not registered’, with observation that name of her guide was not found in list of recognized guides. Only thereafter, under letter dated 03.01.2018, respondent no.2 wrote to respondent no.3 for including name of an Associate Professor among panel of PG Guides list. Thereafter, RGUHS called upon respondent no.2 to verify status of registration of dissertation topics and submission of synopsis of 2016-17 Batch students and in case unregistered, attend to remarks shown against them and re-submit hard copies.

¶49

In response, petitioner submitted representation as per Annexure-J stating that there was little academic or clinical activity or designated teacher/research guide and sought guidance. Subsequently, on 02.01.2019, respondent no.2 replied that it was providing clinical facilities in Department of Cardiology along with details.

¶50

On 14.02.2019, respondent no.2 complained to

¶51

RGUHS that petitioner had hardly put in 90 days of working, during which she had not submitted synopsis and was a chronic absentee, not attended clinical work. However, petitioner was issued hall ticket to appear for July, 2019 Examinations.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶54

Referring to petitioner’s complaint, Registrar, RGUHS called upon her to attend DM Cardiology Exams and contact respondent no.2. In reply by e-mail, petitioner explained above circumstances, where under she was given new topic for Dissertation and despite lack of research material/approved guide/faculty etc. she had managed to prepare synopsis on her own and therefore sought change of affiliation with College. When there was no response, she submitted application under Right to Information Act to RGUHS for providing information about list of Colleges affiliated to RGUHS, with approved Super Speciality Course in DM (Cardiology) and seats allocated to each of such Colleges between year 2010 and 2021. She also sought information, whether respondent no.2 was affiliated to RGUHS and whether approval was granted by Central Government for Super Speciality Course in DM (Cardiology) in respondent no.2 with details of all students admitted by respondent no.2 and those who had completed their Course. She also submitted similar application with National Medical Council (‘NMC’ for short). It was submitted that online status of her application with NMC showed as pending.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶57

It was submitted that above circumstances clearly established that she was made scapegoat due to gullibility of respondent no.2 and dis-concern showed by RGUHS, constrained her to seek above mentioned reliefs. It was alleged that even though respondent no.2 did not have approval/ affiliation with RGUHS for Super Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology), it had admitted petitioner under management quota by collecting exorbitant fees and forcing her to spend time pursuing unapproved Course without adequate facilities either for clinical research or having recognised/registered faculty. It was submitted that respondents had failed to address petitioner’s grievances even after she had expressed same and sought change of affiliation of college, return of tuition fees, etc.

¶58

It was further submitted that failure to furnish information sought by her was with view to cover up mistakes. It was submitted that due to inaction/apathy towards petitioner’s grievances, she was unable to complete Course, even while she suffered loss of time and money. On above grounds, she sought for allowing writ petition.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶61

On other hand, Sri R. Girish Kumar, learned counsel

¶62

for RGUHS, at outset submitted that reliefs sought for by petitioner in this writ petition were not tenable.

¶63

Insofar as first prayer, same was barred by Regulation 10 of “The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000”, (hereinafter ‘Regulations’). Same reads as follows:

¶64

“Migration: Under no circumstance, migration/transfer of student undergoing any Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/ SuperSpeciality Course shall be permitted by any University/Authority”.

¶65

It was submitted that NMC had recognized and

¶66

granted approval to respondent no.2 for Super Speciality Course in DM (Cardiology) with intake of one (under Management quota), which was availed by petitioner during academic year 2016-17. It was submitted that issuance of Hall ticket to petitioner as per Annexure-M would indicate that petitioner had pursued her studies in said Course, but as admitted, she did not appear for Exams. Therefore she would not be entitled to claim refund of fees paid to respondent no.2.

¶67

It was further submitted that during year 2020, she took back all her original testimonials submitted at time of

¶68

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶69

admission. Thus, petitioner on her own volition failed to pursue her studies and as such deemed to have abandoned Course. Present writ petition is filed belatedly seeking untenable reliefs only as afterthought. Hence, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶70

None of other respondents appeared and made any

¶71

submissions.

¶72

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶73

record.

¶74

From above, it would appear that main grievance of petitioner was that knowing fully well, that respondent no.2 - College did not have adequate research/lab facilities with approved faculty nor adequate number of patients undergoing invasive treatment in Cardiology, petitioner was admitted to said Course. Thereafter for above reasons she was required to fend herself by pursuing research theoretically in library, giving unsuitable dissertation topic and after petitioner submitted synopsis, changing topic calling upon petitioner to do fresh research and thereafter when dissertation synopsis was submitted once again, belated remark by RGUHS that same

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶77

was unacceptable on ground of there being no approved Guide in respondent no.2 – College for said topic, had all contributed petitioner loosing out time spent in unfruitful pursuit of Super Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology) in respondent no.2 – College even after payment of hefty fees. Petitioner also appears to have nurtured a separate grievance against respondent no.4 for not issuing experience Certificate for duration when she worked on Fellowship with respondent no.4.

¶78

At outset, insofar as petitioner’s grievance against respondent no.4, petitioner has neither made specific and clear averments about her right to issuance of Experience Certificate either by reference to any specific provision of law, Notification, Ordinance or Circular nor made any specific demand to respondent no.4 under said right. Moreover, said grievance would be distinct and unrelated to petitioner’s grievance against respondents no.1 to 3. In any case, petitioner has not sought any specific relief against respondent no.4. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to petitioner to file fresh representation/application by appending same with relevant records to justify her claim and submit same to respondent no.4, and thereafter approach this Court for directions, either if

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶81

same remains without consideration or questioning result of such consideration, if aggrieved thereby.

¶82

Insofar as prayer (a) for directing RGUHS to allow petitioner change affiliation from respondent no.2 – College to any other, it is seen that Regulation-10 extracted above would bar any migration from one college to another. Therefore, same has to be rejected.

¶83

Insofar as prayers (b) and (d), representations submitted by petitioner to University as well as NMC - respondent no.3 do not enumerate specific grievances and deficiencies and inaction on their part and seeking for specific reliefs/action, except making general and vague allegations. Therefore, said prayer is also disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to file fresh representation/application, clearly spelling out petitioner’s grievances against each of respondentauthorities separately and specific action to be taken by them or relief sought from them respectively by referring to specific provisions of law, if any.

¶84

In case, such representation is made within period of four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order, respondents are directed to advert to each of specific

¶85

13 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:4861 WP No. 24617 of 2021

¶87

allegation or grievance and communicate their response/action taken within period of two months from date of receipt of representation to petitioner.

¶88

Insofar as prayer (c) for return of tuition fees, such prayer would be available to petitioner after establishing that she was admitted to respondent no.2 – College for Super Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology) without either having recognition/approval of said Course by RGUHS or NMC OR, that respondent no.2 admitted petitioner to Super Specialty Course in DM (Cardiology), knowing fully-well that it did not have approved faculty, adequate research or other facilities for such Course in said college. Said fact requires detailed enquiry, for which writ proceedings being unsuitable, petitioner is relegated to approach Civil Court for same.

¶89

With above findings, observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶90

In view of disposal of main matter, pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶91

PSG/GRD

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

Anuradha Kotha v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Kotha v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayush S. Vs the Board of Technical Examination

Mr T Vishwas Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri.Jaikrishna Vs Sri.Shivananda

Ms. Teena Maria Thomas Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Abhinandan Vs Vishweswaraiah University

B S Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka