KIRIT CHHAGANLAL GADHVI Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of life or death significance for First M.B.B.S. students the answer to which would save or scuttle their careers has arisen in the context of the interpretation of an Ordinance framed by the Gujarat University for its Faculty of Medicine viz. Ordinance M.B.B S. 9 which is in the following terms:

(2.) The University contends that once a form is submitted and his name is included in the list the student must be deemed to have failed at the examination even if he withdraws the form in advance and does not appear at the examination for special reasons. Under the circumstances filing of a form is equated with appearing at the examination and a student who does not sit in the examination even on account of unavoidable circumstances is deemed to have appeared and failed as per the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the University. The petitioners who after investing a number of precious years of their lives stand at the brink of a precipice and are faced with the risk of sacrificing their medical careers question this interpretation by way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The petitioners contend that they had appeared at the First M.B.B.S. Examination on a number of occasions in the past not exceeding five and that they had filed forms for appearing at the examination scheduled to take place on particular dates but on account of personal circumstances such as having had to undergo an operation so far as the first petitioner is concerned and sudden sickness so far as the second petitioner is concerned they sought permission to withdraw their forms before the scheduled dates of examination and were permitted to withdraw their forms and the examinations fees paid by them were refunded. Occa- ssions on which they withdrew their forms and were permitted to withdraw their forms and on which occasions they did not actually appear at the examination are even so sought to be relied upon by the University authorities as occasions whereat they have failed to pass the examination under the deeming clause of the statute The petitioners contend that inasmuch as they had withdrawn their forms in advance in view of unavoidable circumstances they cannot be treated as having failed at the examinations if the controversial deeming clause of the statute is construed in a rational and commonsense manner. According to the petitioners on a true inter- pretation of the aforesaid provision only a real attempt at an examination can be taken into account for computing the occasions for which a student has failed and not an imaginary attempt. What at the highest can be said to be a preparation for appearing at the examination cannot be treated as an actual attempt. On the other hand it has been argued by the respondent University that if the statute concerned is properly construed once a student files a form and his name is submitted by the Principal of the College for inclusion in the List of candidates whether or not he actually appears is immaterial and he will be deemed to have failed to pass at the examination for the purpose of the statute.