A petitioner challenging the refusal of grace marks in an M.B.B.S. Ophthalmology examination. The Court held that grace marks are not applicable when a candidate appears in a compartmental manner or fails multiple subjects across attempts, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 : 22.10.2018
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.No.21392 of 2018 and
WMP.Nos.25084 and 25085 of 2018
Sanjayan P. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Proceedings of 2nd respondent in PU/CE/E5/2017-18/171 dated 24.05.2017 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, further to direct the 2nd respondent to award grace mark of 5 marks in Ophthalmology examination conducted in May, 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muruganantham For Respondents: Mr.C.T.Ramesh,
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in PU/CE/E5/2017-18/171 dated 24.05.2017 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent,
unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and for further direction, directing the 2nd respondent to award grace mark of 5 marks in Ophthalmology examination conducted in May, 2018 to the petitioner.
subjects. This discretion has probably permitted the University to frame its own regulations which contains the following clause:
''A passing board is constituted for finalizing the results of each phase. The Heads of the Departments or the members, the board allots grace marks maximum 5 for one subject. The grace mark of 5 will be added for one subject only after the marks obtained in the University Examination are scaled down to 100% in the particular subject-Theory. The grace mark of 5 is applicable to all the University Examinations of MBBS conducted semester-wise. No Grace marks will be added for Practicals.
Grace Mark will not be applicable when the candidate takes up the University Examination in a compartmental manner.''
The regulation, on examination, specifically provides for grace marks in case of failure of a candidate in one subject out of all subjects for the particular semester. As per the regulation of the University, a candidate is not eligible to get grace marks, if he passes all subjects in the next attempt. A candidate who could not clear the examination in all other subjects in the first attempt is not entitled to get the grace marks at the discretion of the University. Since the University has an absolute discretion as per the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, the regulation framed by the University as extracted above is valid and binding on the institution and the students.
''8.In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer relevant decisions rendered by the various Courts. In the ''Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, rep. by its Registrar & Another Versus P.Anand & Others, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 801, the Division Bench has considered the guideline framed by the University and its implementation when the same was issued in the mid term of the course. It has been held in para 29, which reads as under :
''29. The grievance of the students both in the first M.B.B.S. as well as final M.B.B.S. is that the guideline framed by the appellant University is inconsistent to regulation 12(4) of the MCI Regulation and thereafter, the same is repugnant. Further, it is contended that the impugned guideline is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the students having joined the course in 2006-07 having been informed that the evaluation of the examination would be in accordance with the MCI Regulation had a legitimate expectation that such regulation shall be applicable till they complete the course and therefore, the students in their writ petitions have pointed out various instances to justify their stand that the impugned guidelines suffer from the vice of gross discrimination and unreasonableness and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.''
''14. On a reading of the Circular dated 29.06.2016 of the Pondicherry University and the Medical Council of India Regulations 1997 and the Examination Regulations of Pondicherry University 200910, extracted supra, it is clear that grace marks will not be applicable to a candidate, if he/she takes up the University Examination in a compartmental manner and further, grace marks will not be awarded for practical papers from the academic session May 2016 onwards. Even assuming that there is no ratification as per the Circular dated 29.06.2016, as per the Circular dated 24.05.2017 of the Pondicherry University, Grace marks will not be applicable when the candidate takes up the University Examination in a compartmental manner and that grace marks may be awarded to a student, who has failed in a single subject while appearing for all papers prescribed for that particular session.
"9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537 = 1972 AC 877 (HL) ). Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases."
nowhere says that students, who have joined the Course prior to the MCI Regulations would have the benefit of grace marks and those who have joined after the amendment of the Regulations, would not be entitled to the benefit.''
Sd/Deputy Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar tsi
To
+1cc to Mr.M.Muruganantham, Advocate sr.no.71869 +1cc to Mr.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate sr.no.71729 +1cc to Government Pleader(pondicherry) sr.no.71745 +1cc to Mr.V.P.Raman, Advocate sr.no.71930
W.P.No.21392/2018
nr 23/01/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a medical student who failed in two subjects initially and later passed one but failed again in the other in a compartmental manner is entitled to grace marks under MCI Regulations.
Whether the University's regulation denying grace marks to students appearing in a compartmental manner is valid and binding.
Whether the principle of legitimate expectation established in K. Magesh applies when a student fails repeatedly in different attempts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Magesh vs. Medical Council of India and othersDistinguished¶26
K. Magesh vs. Medical Council of India and others etc. batch in W.A.Nos.325 to 333/2017
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University rep. by its Registrar vs. P. AnandDistinguished¶27
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, rep. by its Registrar & Another Versus P. Anand & Others, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 801
R. Kangadevi vs. The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry UniversityRelied on¶30
R. Kangadevi Vs. The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry-14 and others in W.P.No.4565 of 2018
Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶34
Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533 · Who else cites this
Herrington vs. British Railways BoardReferred¶35
Herrington Vs. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537 = 1972 AC 877 (HL))
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sanjayan P.
Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute
The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University
The Medical Council of India
S.S. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
