An M.B.B.S. student, two marks short of the practical aggregate in Anatomy though securing over 50% overall, sought a mandamus that she be treated as passed. The Court held that the JIPMER Act, 2008 and its higher curriculum standards exclude the MCI regulations, dismissed the writ petition, and rejected her challenge to the 2008-09 curriculum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.21814 of 2013
Miss.Aheli Bal .. Petitioner
-vs-
For Petitioner :: Ms.R.Vaigai for Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For Respondents :: Mr.Mohan Parasaran Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan for R1 Mr.V.P.Raman for R2
ORDER
Ms.Aheli Bal has come to this Court seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondentJIPMER, Puducherry to treat the marks secured by her in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a “pass” and to pass further orders.
respondent showing that the petitioner failed in the subject of anatomy, although she secured more than 50% in aggregate in all the subjects. When the petitioner enquired with the first respondent, she was informed that so far as the practical part of anatomy subject is concerned, when the minimum mark is 50 and for practical internal assessment, the minimum mark is 11, however, the aggregate marks should be 65, but the petitioner having got the minimum of 50 marks in practical and 13 marks under practical internal assessment, miserably failed to get the aggregate of 65 marks, as she secured only 63 out of 130 marks. Hence, two marks less the minimum pass percentage of 50% has made her to fail in the subject of anatomy. However, so far as the theory part of anatomy subject is concerned, the petitioner secured 120 out of 220 marks, which is more than 50% of marks. Moreover, even in the aggregate for the subject of anatomy as a whole, the petitioner has secured 183 out of 350 marks, which is also more than 50% marks. As a matter of fact, when the requirement prescribed by the Medical Council of India under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 states that a candidate securing in each of the subjects 50% in aggregate with a minimum of 50% in theory including oral and the minimum of 50% in practical/clinical to be given a pass in the subject, while so, the petitioner, having secured the total of 183 marks out of 350 marks in the subject of anatomy as a whole as against 50%, should be declared as pass in the subject of anatomy, since the petitioner has complied with the benchmark prescribed by the Medical Council of India under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. But to her shock and surprise, the first respondent informed about the concept of break system stating that as per Regulation 7(3) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, a failed candidate could attend the subsequent semester only on clearing the failed subject in the subsequent examination after six months and till then, would not be permitted to attend the next semester. In view of that, the petitioner was denied permission to attend the third semester classes that had commenced on 29.7.2013 without any written order to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner and her father made representations in writing on 27.7.2013 and 30.7.2013 with a request to the first respondent to consider the claim on the aforesaid facts and permit the petitioner to attend the classes along with her original batch to continue her studies. Even though the petitioner applied for re-totalling by paying Rs.500/- towards the same on 1.8.2013, there was no response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to come to this Court.
| Theory | Theory | Oral | Theory | Practic | Prac.- | Total | Grand | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -IA | Total | al | IA | Total | ||||
| Max. | 160 | 40 | 20 | 220 | 100 | 30 | 130 | 350 |
| Marks |
| Theory | Theory | Oral | Theory | Practic | Prac.- | Total | Grand | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -IA | Total | al | IA | Total | ||||
| Min. | 64 | 14 | 0 | 110 | 50 | 11 | 65 | 175 |
| Marks |
the petitioner, as against the minimum marks of 64 in theory paper, has secured 92 marks. In theory internal assessment, as against the minimum marks of 14, the petitioner has got 18, in oral, has secured 10 marks and all these put together comes to 120 marks in theory. So far as practical is concerned, as against the minimum marks of 50, the petitioner has secured exactly 50 in practical, as against the minimum marks of 11 in practical internal assessment, the petitioner has secured 13 and instead of securing 65 i.e., 50%, she has secured only 63 marks, although the grand total comes to 183 marks out of 350 marks. Although the petitioner secured 63 marks instead of 65 in practical, the aggregate marks of 183 secured by the petitioner clearly shows that she has more than 50% in aggregate. Therefore, the first respondent cannot fail the petitioner in the subject of anatomy. Even as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India, a student must secure at least 50% marks in internal assessment in order to be eligible to appear for the final university examination. In other words, it is only when a student secures 50% marks, he/she becomes eligible to be admitted for the final university examination. Indeed, the marks obtained in the internal assessment ought not to be treated under a distinct head or subject. This could be seen from the language of Regulation 12(2)(iv) the Medical Council of India Regulations, which states that weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% of the total marks in each subject. However, in spite of the marks obtained for theory in the internal examination, those marks will be added to the marks obtained in theory for the final examination and similarly the marks relating to practicals of internal assessment will be added to the marks obtained in practicals at the final examination. Therefore, when the Medical Council of India Regulations stipulate that there is no requirement that a student must secure 50% aggregate in the internal assessment as a distinct head, the petitioner should be allowed to move forward to the third semester. Adding further, it was contended that as per Regulation 12(2)(iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, when a candidate must obtain 50% aggregate with minimum 50% marks in theory and 50% marks in practicals, the petitioner, having secured more than 50% in aggregate in the subject of anatomy read with Regulation 7(3) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, should be construed as a passed candidate.
Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 has clearly held that the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act shall prevail over the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, by placing heavy reliance on the above said judgment, it was stated that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open, since its powers are very broad. Moreover, when the regulations framed by the UGC in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) & (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude, they apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. Therefore, in the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions and such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by the UGC and the standards and co-ordination of works or facilities in the universities must be maintained. In view of that, the powers of University Grants Commission under Section 26(1)((f) & (g) are very broad in nature. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the petitioner has secured the marks as per the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India to get a pass, any other higher standards fixed by the first respondentJIPMER, which are running contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulations, are no longer permissible in view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
said Act is to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education to meet the country's needs for specialists and medical teachers with a further object to bring together, as far as possible, in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity. With a view to promote all the above objects specified under Section 12, the Institute was given special power to specify courses and curricula for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies.
sub-section (2) read with sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, when the Central Government has made the regulations called Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Puducherry Regulations, 2008, the same having been notified by the Central Government in the gazette of India published on 4.8.2008, both the Act and Regulations are a code by themselves governing the medical education in JIPMER without reference to the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. In view of the special national importance given to the JIPMER Institute, the regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India are not applicable to the JIPMER, he pleaded. When the JIPMER has been given a special status, sufficient power has been given under Section 10(5) of the Act to constitute as many standing committees and as many ad hoc committees as it thinks fit for exercising any power or discharging any functions of the Institute or for inquiring into any matter which the Institute may refer to them. In exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 10, sufficient standing academic committee had been constituted and the standing academic committee, in its meeting held on 8th July, 2009, approved the M.B.B.S., curriculum in agenda item No.2009.01.02. As the minutes of the meeting clearly shows that when the Dean presented the curriculum of various courses conducted by JIPMER, they were accepted by the Pondicherry University, no fault can be found. Adding further, learned Solicitor General further pleaded that several members were drawn from medical institutions from South India and they were approved by the academic council of Puducherry University, therefore, when the M.B.B.S., curriculum approved by the standing academic committee is in accordance with law, the same is applicable only to the students admitted to the M.B.B.S., course in JIPMER and this curriculum framed by JIPMER is in exercise of the power conferred under Section 24(3) of the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research Puducherry Regulations, 2008, hence, there is no requirement for gazette notification of the curriculum of M.B.B.S. Course applicable to the students admitted to M.B.B.S. Course in JIPMER from 2008-09 onwards, because the curriculum is in tune with the objects set forth in Section 12(a) of the Act to maintain a high standard of medical education. As per the curriculum for M.B.B.S. Course, the period of study is 4 ½ years and the same is divided into three phases. Phase-I consisting of two semesters, will have pre-clinical subjects viz., human anatomy, physiology and bio-chemistry. Similarly, Phase-II will have three semesters consisting of para-clinical / clinical subjects and PhaseIII, which is a continuation of study of clinical subjects for seven semesters after passing the first phase, have been made applicable from 2008-09 onwards. As per the curriculum, no student shall be permitted to join the Phase-II, i.e., para-clinical / clinical group of subjects until the student had passed in all the subjects in Phase-I. Clause-3 of the university examination regulation also clearly mentions the minimum marks for declaration of pass, as follows:-
| University | Internal Assessment |
University+Internal Assessment aggregate + Viva |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Theory (Minimum) | 40% | 35% | 50% |
| Practical/Clinic | 50% | 35% | 50% |
| al (Minimum) |
8(a). While coming to the marks obtained by the petitioner, the learned Solicitor General submitted that when the total marks for theory is 220 and for practical it is 130 and the grand total is 350 marks, a student has to independently pass in theory and practical by obtaining a minimum of 50% in the university examination plus internal assessment plus viva-voce in theory and a minimum of 50% in the practical examination plus practical internal assessment. While so, the petitioner, who was admitted to the first year M.B.B.S., course during the academic year 2012-13, had obtained only 63 marks as against the requisite 65 marks in practical. As the petitioner failed to obtain the minimum 65 marks in practical, she has failed in the subject of anatomy as per the M.B.B.S., curriculum applicable to the students admitted in the JIPMER from 2008-09 onwards. When the petitioner has secured 63 marks and running short of 2 marks in the practical part of anatomy subject, the contention of the petitioner that since 50% marks had been obtained by her in aggregate in the practical part, therefore, she should be declared a pass in the subject of anatomy, is not acceptable. As per the curriculum, since the petitioner had failed in the subject of anatomy, she is not eligible to proceed to Phase-II, second year, third semester, as she has to re-appear in the examination in the subject of anatomy.
obtained by her in the second semester in the practical subject of anatomy is a pass mark.
while dealing with the provisions of the UGC Act and IGNOU Act, has held that the provisions of UGC Act are not in conflict with the provisions of IGNOU Act. By overruling the submission of the IGNOU that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the IGNOU Act, the non obstante clause has been created and thus would prevail over the earlier Act cannot be accepted, the Apex Court held that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Regulations are applicable and binding on all concerned, for the reason that the IGNOU has not made any regulation and it has not made any ordinance. Moreover, it is guided by the regulations framed by UGC. On this basis, the Apex Court held in Annamalai University case that the UGC Act would prevail over the IGNOU Act and the said ruling is inapplicable to the present case, since Section 24 of the JIPMER Act clearly excludes the applicability of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to the medical degrees being granted by the JIPMER. Moreover, when the JIPMER Act has been enacted to develop the institute as one of national importance, the curriculum adopted by the JIPMER is in fine tune with the object set forth in Section 12 (a) of the Act, to maintain a high standard of medical education, hence, the claim of the petitioner that she has passed Phase-I of the examination as stipulated by the Medical Council of India regulations is inapplicable to JIPMER.
subsequently found to be unsuccessful in the examination, cannot challenge the said examination, the petitioner, who was unsuccessful in the second semester examination, cannot challenge the curriculum. In support of the above submission, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp.SCC 285 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127. Even after her failure, when the JIPMER informed the petitioner and nine other students of 201213 batch who failed in the examination held during May, 2013 to write the supplementary examination, except the petitioner, nine other students submitted their examination applications and they were issued with the hall tickets. Subsequently they appeared in the supplementary examination held from 19.10.2013 to 30.10.2013. But the petitioner alone did not submit her application, as a result, she did not even appear in the supplementary examination held during October, 2013. When the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided to her to appear in the supplementary examination, she is not entitled to claim any equitable relief under the present proceedings. When the supplementary examination was specifically granted as per the permission accorded by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.25992 of 2013 for the failed students of 2012-13 batch to enable them to join the main batch, the petitioner alone failed to make use of the opportunity. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any equitable relief. On this basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
“12.The objects of the Institute shall be--
(a) to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education;
(b) to bring together, as far as may be, in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity; and
(c) to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education to meet the country's needs for specialists and medical teachers.”
“13. With a view to the promotion of the objects specified in section 12, the Institute may--
(a) provide for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in the science of modern medicine and other allied sciences, including physical and bilogical sciences;
(b) provide facilities for research in various branches of such sciences;
(c) provide for the teaching of humanities
(d) conduct experiments in new methods of medical
education, both undergraduate and postgraduate, in order to arrive at satisfactory standards of such education;
(e) specify courses and curricula for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies;
(f) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, establish and maintain--
(i)one or more medical colleges with different departments, including a department of preventive and social medicine, sufficiently staffed and equipped to undertake not only under medical education but also postgraduate medical education in different subjects,
(ii)one or more well-equipped hospitals;
(iii)a dental college with such institutional
facilities for the practice of dentistry and for the practical training of students as may be necessary,
(h) hold examinations and grant such degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education as may be laid down in the regulations;
(i) institute, and appoint persons to, professorships, readerships, lecturerships and posts of any description in accordance with regulations;
(j) receive grants from the Government and gifts, donations, benefactions, bequests and transfers of properties, both movable and immovable, from donors, benefactors, testators or transferors, as the case may be;
(k) deal with any property belonging to, or vested in, the Institute in any manner which is considered necessary for promoting the objects specified in section 12;
(l) demand and receive with the prior approval of the Central Government such fees and other charges as may be specified:
Provided that such fees and other charges payable by the students shall in no case exceed the fees and other charges specified by a medical Institute of the Central Government;
(m) reserve at least twenty seats out of every seventy-five seats in undergraduate courses in the institute for local applicants;
(n) provide free treatment to the poor patients in the same manner as are being provided by a medical Institute of the Central Government;
(o) construct quarters for its staff and allot such quarters to the staff in accordance with such regulations as may be made in this behalf;
(p) borrow money, with the prior approval of the
Central Government, on the security of the property of the Institute; (q) do all such other acts and things as may be necessary to further the objects specified in section 12.”
“23. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Institute shall have the power to grant medical, dental, nursing degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles under this Act. 24. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Dentist Act, 1948, the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, the medical degrees and diplomas, dental degrees and nursing degrees granted by the Institute under this Act shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Acts aforesaid and shall be deemed to be included in the Schedules to the respective Acts.” (emphasis supplied)
The above Sections 23 and 24 of the JIPMER Act, having two non obstante clauses, shall have special significance. The non obstante clause under Section 23 would prevail over anything contained in any other law for the time being in force to grant medical, dental, nursing degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles under the Act. Again the second non obstante clause under Section 24 specifically stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Dentist Act, 1948, the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, the medical degrees and diplomas, dental degrees and nursing degrees granted by the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Institute under the JIPMER Act shall be recognised as medical qualification, clearly excludes not only the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, but also the Dentist Act, 1948, the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, therefore, the non obstante clause under Section 24 specifically and explicitly excludes the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In the light of the above position, the first respondent-JIPMER invited applications from eligible candidates to apply for the 4½ years M.B.B.S. course for the July, 2012 session by specifically showing the details of marks to be obtained by the students in the first year M.B.B.S., course as follows:-
| Theory | Theory -IA |
Oral | Theory Total |
Practic al |
Prac.- IA |
Total | Grand Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. Marks |
160 | 40 | 20 | 220 | 100 | 30 | 130 | 350 |
| Min. Marks |
64 | 14 | 0 | 110 | 50 | 11 | 65 | 175 |
| Theo | Theo | Oral | Theory | Practi | Prac | Prac | t Grand |
Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ry | ry- | Total | cal | .-IA | total | total total |
|||
| IA | l | al | |||||||
| Anatomy | 92 | 18 | 10 | 120 | 50 | 13 | 63 | 183 | Fail |
By looking at the marks prescribed by the first respondent-Institute and the marks obtained by the petitioner, it clearly shows that a student has to pass independently in theory and practical by obtaining the minimum of 50% in the university plus internal assessment plus viva-voce in theory. Similarly, another minimum of 50% in the university practical plus practical internal assessment, should be secured. But the second column showing the marks obtained by the petitioner for the subject anatomy indicates that the petitioner as against 64 minimum marks in theory, has obtained 92 marks. Similarly, in theory internal assessment, as against minimum marks of 14, has got 18 marks. Again, the petitioner secured 10 marks in oral. Totally the marks secured by the petitioner is 120 in theory independently. In respect of practical part, the petitioner, as against the minimum of 50%, has secured only the minimum mark of 50 and in practical internal assessment, as against the minimum mark of 11, has secured 13 marks independently. But instead of securing 65 marks in aggregate, the petitioner secured only 63 marks, namely, 2 marks less than the requisite aggregate. Therefore, she was declared failed in the subject of anatomy as per the curriculum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
JIPMER for the students admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course from the year 2008-09 onwards.
“12. Examination Regulations: Essentialities for qualifying to appear in professional examinations.
The performance in essential components of training are to be assessed, based on: (1) Attendance: ..... (2) Internal Assessment: (i) to (iii).... (iv) weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% of the total marks in each subject. (v).... .....”
with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, therefore, the first respondent cannot ignore the mandated regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. This contention that higher standards prescribed by JIPMER for passing the M.B.B.S. Course being contrary and inconsistent with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, the same should be declared as ultra vires the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry Act, 2008, as a similar issue had already been concluded in favour of the petitioner in Annamalai University case (supra) holding that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open, since the powers of UGC Act are very broad, is far from acceptance for the following reasons.
JIPMER Act, are being recognised as medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. For the above reasons, the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University case (supra), which had dealt with only the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and the IGNOU Act, 1985, has no application to the facts of the present case.
“42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26 (1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are allpervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.
conventional or open. On this basis, it was held in the said judgment that the provisions of the UGC Act to maintain minimum standards of instructions will be binding on all concerned. But the case on hand is totally different from the issue decided in Annamalai University case by virtue of Sections 23, 24 and 30(2) of the JIPMER Act. Although it cannot be argued that the non obstante clause under Section 23 of the JIPMER Act does not give any clarity on the power for grant of medical degrees by the first respondent, without reference to the regulations and provisions made under the Medical Council of India Act, at the risk of repetition, Section 24 of the JIPMER Act clearly and explicitly, in the matter of providing medical degrees by the JIPMER Institute, excludes the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Dentist Act, 1948 and the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 from the provisions of the JIPMER Act for granting medical degrees, therefore, no provision under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and no regulation or rule framed under the said Act prescribing any criteria for passing the M.B.B.S. Course or post graduate medical education course will prevail over the JIPMER Act, hence, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the criteria for passing the M.B.B.S. Course fixed by the Medical Council of India Regulations will prevail over the JIPMER Act, by virtue of the further clarification made under Section 24 indicating that the medical degrees issued by the first respondent shall be deemed to be included in the schedule to the respective Acts inasmuch as Section 24 clearly and explicitly excludes the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in toto. 26. That apart, when enormous power is given to the Institute under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act, the Institute may alter or rescind any regulation made by the Central Government to specify courses and curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate studies as given under Section 30(1)(d) to hold examination and grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions, therefore, I am of the considered view that the M.B.B.S. curriculum framed by the standing academic committee of JIPMER in exercise of the power conferred under Regulation 24(3) of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Regulations, 2008 read with Section 10(5) of the Act is perfrectly in order, hence, there is no requirement for gazette notification, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner to challenge the curriculum of 2008-09 onwards of JIPMER by way of subsequent affidavit dated 30/31.8.2013 is unsustainable in law, hence, the same is rejected. Besides, the curriculum is in fine tune with the object of maintaining a high standard of medical education as set forth under Section 12(a) of the Act. In other words, if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the JIPMER should also fix the criteria for passing the M.B.B.S. Course as prescribed by the Medical Council of India Regulations is accepted, that would defeat one of the objects sought to be achieved to have the Institute as of national importance under Section 12(a) of the Act. Indeed the JIPMER Act, 2008 was enacted with the specific purpose to have an institution of national importance by enacting Sections 23 and 24, therefore, the provisions contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
come in the way of granting degrees by the first respondent Institute.
his individual capacity and any claim to invariably apply the general rules for different categories, particularly, when there is a ‘notwithstanding clause’ to operate in respect of the Institute of National importance has to be just ignored, as otherwise, the very purpose and intention behind enactment of the legislation by the parliament/legislature allowing operation of the notwithstanding clause for any institute of national importance will be plainly defeated.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
Dated: 25.4.2014
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ss
To
1. The Director
JIPMER
Puducherry 605 086
2. The Secretary
Medical Council of India
Sector 8
New Delhi
1 cc to Mr.R. Syed Mustafa, Advocate, sr. 19814
2 ccs to Mr.M.T. Arunan, Advocate, Sr. 19655
W.P.No.21814 of 2013
CNR (CO)
kk 25/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate securing over 50% aggregate in a subject but less than the minimum aggregate in the practical part must be declared to have passed that subject.
Whether the MCI Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 override the M.B.B.S. curriculum and pass criteria framed by JIPMER under the JIPMER Act, 2008.
Whether a candidate who appeared in the examination without protest and did not sit the supplementary examination can challenge the curriculum and claim relief.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism DepartmentDistinguished¶94
Annamalai University represented by its Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590
University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)Relied on¶105
University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519 · Who else cites this
Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala ShuklaRelied on¶104
Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 · Who else cites this
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar ShuklaReferred¶104
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp.SCC 285 · Who else cites this
9 provisions across 4 enactments
Miss.Aheli Bal
The Director, JIPMER, Puducherry 605 086
Medical Council of India represented by its Secretary, Sector 8, New Delhi
T.Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
