SANDEEP SHENAI Vs. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- Issue rule. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether failure to attend an examination should be construed as failure to pass the examination. In other words, whether non-attendance of a candidate at an examination should be treated as an attempt at an examination?

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a student of the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, which is affiliated to the first respondent University. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner has maintained a good academic record throughout, having obtained I Class in the I Year M.B.B.S., Degree examination and again I Class with Distinction at the II Year M.B.B.S., Degree examination. However, the petitioner could not take the Final Year M.B.B.S., Part-I examination, which was held from 17th January 1989, though gh he had paid the necessary fee to the first respondent University for entrance to the said examination. According to the petitioner, he could not take the Final Year M.B.B.S. examination, which was held from 17/01/1989 as he was hospitalised for treatment of viral hepatitis from 9/12/1988 to 27th December 1988 and thahat he was advised complete rest till 27/01/1989. In these circumstances, he was unable to attend the examination. The petitioner, therefore, addressed a letter dated 2/01/1989 to the second respondent, who is the Registrar (Evaluation) of the first respondent University indicating that he was withdrawing from the said examination because of his ill-health. The medical certificate issued by the Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Hospital, Manipal, certifying that the petitioner was in the hospital from 9/12/1988 to 27th December 1988 becausese of viral hepatitis infection, was also enclosed to that letter. In this petition, the said letter and the medical certificate are produced as Annexures C and D, respectively. It appears in response to the said letter, the Principal of the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, received a reply dated 2/02/1989, which is produced as Annexure-E from the second respondent. It reads thus : This was reference to the representation dated 2-1-1989 of Sri K. Sandeep Shenai (Reg. No. 8521060) Final M.B.B.S., candidate of your institution and I am to inform you that if a candidate is absent after having registered for the examination he cannot withdraw even on medical grounds and he may be treated as repeater for the subsequent examination. Sri K. Sandeep Shenai may be informed that he will have to be treated as repeater for the subsequent examination." Thereafter, the first respondent University has sent to the petitioner, the marks-sheet dated 10/03/1989 stating that the petitioner was absent for the theory as well as practical examinations. In these circumstances, the petitioner appeared for the Final M.B.B.S., Part I examination held in June/ July, 1989. In that examination, the petitioner has secured very good marks, in that he has secured 259 marks out of 360 marks, which works out to 72%. Despite the fact that the petitioner has secured such good marks, he was not declared by the first respondent University as having passed in I Class with Distinction, which according to the marks he has secured, he is entitled to under the relevant Ordinance. The I Class Distinction is conferred on students, who have secured more than 70% in the examination. In fact I Class Distinction is what the petitioner had secured in the II Year M.B.B.S., Degree examination held in July 1988.

(3.) The petitioner, therefore, gave a representation to the Syndicate of the first respondent University that he was entitled to be declared as having passed the Final Year M. B.B. S., Degree examination in I Class with Distinction. To that representation dated 1-12-1989 (Annexure-G), the petitioner received a reply dated 23-12-1989 marked as Annexure-H to the effect that having regard to all aspects of the matter, it was not possible for the University to consider his appearance in the Final Year M.B.B.S. examination held in June/July 1989 as first appearance. This was because, according to the University, the petitioner having remitted the examination fee by itself was sufficient to hold that he had made an attempt at the previous examination and whatever be the reason for his absence at the examination, it was of no relevance and that should be treated as an attempt at an examination.