AHELI BAL Vs. DIRECTOR JIPMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS .Aheli Bal has come to this Court seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondent -JIPMER, Puducherry to treat the marks secured by her in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a ''pass '' and to pass further orders.

(2.) MS .R.Vaigai, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ms.Aheli Bal, a brilliant student who got the 27th rank in the medical entrance examination on all India basis, was selected purely on merits by the first respondent - Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry and after joining the M.B.B.S. Course, she cleared the first semester and also wrote all the subjects in the second semester examination held between 7th June, 2013 and 19th June, 2013. But the provisional list was published on 23.7.2013 in the notice board of the first respondent showing that the petitioner failed in the subject of anatomy, although she secured more than 50% in aggregate in all the subjects. When the petitioner enquired with the first respondent, she was informed that so far as the practical part of anatomy subject is concerned, when the minimum mark is 50 and for practical internal assessment, the minimum mark is 11, however, the aggregate marks should be 65, but the petitioner having got the minimum of 50 marks in practical and 13 marks under practical internal assessment, miserably failed to get the aggregate of 65 marks, as she secured only 63 out of 130 marks. Hence, two marks less the minimum pass percentage of 50% has made her to fail in the subject of anatomy. However, so far as the theory part of anatomy subject is concerned, the petitioner secured 120 out of 220 marks, which is more than 50% of marks. Moreover, even in the aggregate for the subject of anatomy as a whole, the petitioner has secured 183 out of 350 marks, which is also more than 50% marks. As a matter of fact, when the requirement prescribed by the Medical Council of India under the

(3.) CONTINUING her arguments, it was stated that when the petitioner has complied with the bench mark outlined by the Medical Council of India, the same cannot be diluted by the first respondent on the ground that the curriculum of 2008 -09 is applicable to the students pursuing medical education in JIPMER. Adding further, it was stated that when the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Annamalai University represented by its Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 has clearly held that the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act shall prevail over the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, by placing heavy reliance on the above said judgment, it was stated that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open, since its powers are very broad. Moreover, when the regulations framed by the UGC in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) & (h) of sub -section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude, they apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. Therefore, in the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions and such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by the UGC and the standards and co -ordination of works or facilities in the universities must be maintained. In view of that, the powers of University Grants Commission under Section 26(1)((f) & (g) are very broad in nature. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the petitioner has secured the marks as per the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India to get a pass, any other higher standards fixed by the first respondent -JIPMER, which are running contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulations, are no longer permissible in view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.