SUNIL KUMAR D S Vs. MYSORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions are mb8s students studying in institutions affiliated to the respondent-mysore university. Admitted prior to the year 1996-97, the respondent continues to offer the examinations for the earlier batch of students. Results of the examinations conducted during July 1999 showed that the petitioners had failed in one or more subjects. Most of them appear to have applied for revaluation of their answer scripts and retotalling of their marks, which respondent is examining. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions relates primarily to the validity of a notification dated 15th of july, 1999 issued by the university declaring that its regulations providing for award of grace marks shall have no application to graduate/postgraduate medical courses and such other courses as are governed by any central legislation. Having said so the respondent appears to have declined the request for award of grace marks to the petitioners no matter some if not all of them qualify for the award of such marks as per the regulations of the mci. The petitioners contend that the view taken by the university is opposed to the true spirit of the direction given by a single bench of this court in two writ petitions referred to in the impugned circular. They have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to award grace marks either as per the regulations framed by the university or those framed by the medical council of india.

(2.) THE impugned notification has been issued pursuant to the orders of this court in kum. Swapna lakshman v Bangalore university and others and irshad v gulbarga university. In swapna lakshman's case, supra, the question that fell for consideration was whether the petitioner was entitled to the award of grace marks in terms of the regulations framed by the Bangalore university. While answering the said question in the negative, bharuka, j. , held that the regulations in question were in conflict with those framed by the dental council of India under Section 20 (2) (h) of the Dentists Act, 1948. Reliance was placed upon an earlier decision in dhimant singh k. Goleria v vice-chancellor, kuvempu university, where the learned judge had taken a similar view in regard to the Provisions in medical council act and the regulations framed thereunder. The court had in dhimant singh's case, supra, observed as under.

(3.) IN irshad's case, supra, a similar question arose in the context of the regulations framed by the gulbarga university. The court reiterated the legal position stated earlier and made the following general observation in regard to the efficacy of the regulations and/or ordinances of the universities governing examinations regulated by any Central Act or rules framed thereunder: