EASWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are 14 petitioners in this original petition. They are all Final Year M.B B.S. Students), Medical, College. Trivandrum. The petitioners have sought, I would say, a rather strange relief in this Original Petition. They want this court to issue a mandamus or other direction directing respondents 1, 2 and 4, viz., The Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum, the Director, Medical Education, Medical College-P.O., Trivandrum, the University of Kerala, represented by the Registrar, Trivandrum, to permit the petitioners to appear for the ensuing Final Year M.B.B.S. Part II Examination to be held by the University of Kerala, in case respondents S to 18 are allowed to appear for the said examination. I am told that the Final Year M.B.B S. Part II Examination begins on 14tb June, 1988. Similarly, a strange interim relief is also asked for by the petitioners. They want this court to pass an interim order directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to postpone the ensuing final year M. B. B. S. Part II Examination scheduled to be held by the University in June, July 1988 to enable the petitioners to appear for the said examination, after completing the required final years postings.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners have not completed the required final year clinical postings. The petitioners were not successful in the second year M.B.B.S Examination for the first or the second time. They passed second year M.B B S. Examination held in September 1987, the result of which was published only in November 1987. The students respondents in this Original Petition, however passed their second year M.B.B.S. Examination in the second chance. Though they have not also completed the required minimum clinical postings, they have got a better footing than the petitioners, since they were able to attend more clinical postings than the petitioners. The petitioners want me to consider both these sets of students, viz. the petitioning students and the respondents on an equal basis for the purpose of permitting them to sit for the Final Year M. B. B S. Examination. The Principal declined to treat them on the same basis. The counsel submits that this is a hostile discrimination and contravenes Art.14 of the Constitution.

(3.) I do not think that I can accept this submission of the; petitioners. Obviously, by the petitioners passed the Second Year M.B.B.S. Examination only at their third chance, while the other students, viz., respondents 5 to 18, passed their examination, at any rate, at the second chance. In considering whether these two sets of students are to be treated alike for the purpose of allowing them to sit for Final Year M.B.B.S. Examination, there is really an intelligent differentia and makes them two different classes. So, I decline to accept the case of the petitioners that there is hostile discrimination by the Principal, attracting the intervention of this Court on the ground that the action of the Principal is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution.