ABHIJIT Vs. DEAN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AURANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant who secured the first rank in order of merit in the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination of the Marathwada University in May, 1985 and who also stood first in Surgery/and ENT/ Ophthalmology, sought admission to the M.S. degree course commencing in July, 1986. Though the selection to the M.S. degree course was on the basis of merit the appellant was not selected as a deduction of five per cent was made from the marks obtained by him on the ground that he had passed the subject in his second attempt. The basis for holding that the appellant had passed in the second attempt was that in the IIIrd M.B.B.S. final term, the appellant suffered from infectious hepatitis and was, therefore, unable to attend classes and clinics. He applied to the Dean to 'cancel third A B. B.S. final term' and to permit him to attend classes and clinics regularly with the next batch. This was done and he passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination, as already stated, creditably by securing the first rank. It is not disputed that the appellant was seriously ill and was hospitalised and that he was unable to attend classes and clinics. It is also not disputed that he did not even submit his application form for the IIIrd year M.B.B.S. examination in 1984. It is also not disputed that he appeared for the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination at the first opportunity that was available to him yet a deduction of five per cent was made from the marks obtained by him on the ground that he passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination in the second attempt. There appears to be no justification for holding that the appellant passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination in the second attempt.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that though the rules relating to admission to the Post-Graduate Course did not define what a second attempt was, the rules for appointment of Residents under the IIIrd year Residency programme at Government Medical Colleges defined what was a second attempt and since those admitted to the M.S. degree course were necessarily to be appointed to Residencies the rules applicable to Residencies were made applicable to those seeking admission to the M.S. Degree course. In the first place, we do not see how the rules relating to appointment to Residencies could be made to regulate admission to the M. S. Degree course. In the second place, we do not think that even the rule on which the respondents rely justifies the deduction of five per cent marks. A note under rule IV. 5(e) of the Rules relating to Appointment to Residencies is to the following effect: