BANDANA MEHREY Vs. KING GEORGES MEDICAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise a few questions which are common and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Petitioners of both the petitions claimed postponement of the supplementary examination for Post Graduate Degrees King George's Medical College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical College') from December, 1988 to February, 1989, otherwise, to direct the Principal to allow the petitioners to appear in the same examination treating the petitioners, as having completed the requisite duration of their Post Graduate Courses.

(2.) FIRST of all Writ Petition No 8103 of 1988 filed by Dr. Bandana Mehray and thereafter Writ Petition No. 8870 of 1988 filed by Dr. Mukesh Swarup Johri will be taken up. Writ Petition No. 8103 of 1988.

(3.) AS the supplementary examination for the same course was due to be held a few months after the Final Examination, the petitioner through her letter dated 12-9-88 (contained in Annexure-3) applied to the Principal of the Medical College for recording her attendance from 12-9-88 claiming that she was attending the Court from that day so that in case there was found shortage in her attendance she would be able to make good the deficiency for qualifying to appear in the supplementary examination on her attendance being recorded from 12-9-88. Through her letter dated 23-9-88 the petitioner reminded the Principal insisting that her attendance be recorded. Through his letter dated 24-9-88 contained in Annexure-5 the Principal turned down the request of the petitioner stating that the Statute of Lucknow University did not permit the attendance to be allowed with retrospective effect. The petitioner through her letter dated 29-9-88 contained in Annexure-7 protested against the Principal's reply and insisted that as she was regularly attending the Department since 12-9-88, though she was not permitted to sign attendance register, so her attendance be recorded with effect from 12-9-88. The Principal through his letter dated 29-9-88 contained in Annexure No. 8 again informed the petitioner that her attendance in the Department would be recorded only after the result of her Writ Petition (No. 5821 of 1988) was communicated to him. AS already mentioned, the earlier Writ Petition (No. 5821 of 1988) was decided against the petitioner on 28-9-88. Holding the supplementary Examination from 2-12-88 was announced but the petitioner was not given admit card to appear in the same on the ground that her attendance in the Department still remained short. In this connection reference is made to the letter dated 26/28-11-1988 contained to Annexure-A3 filed with the supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the Principal of the Medical College. In this letter of the Medical College detailed calculation of the attendance of the petitioner during the period starting from the date of her joining the Department in 1986 up to 28-11-1988, is noted by the Head of the concerned Department together with the days of the absence of the petitioner in the Department due to various reasons. According to this letter (Annexure- A3) the petitioner had not completed the period of "22 months' stay in the Department" and hence, she was found not eligible for appearing in the supplementary examination- The same letter is to the effect that the period of "22 months' stay in the Department was required in the Department. But in this chart attendance (after the final examination of August, 1988) was counted from 13-10-1988 while she was attending the Department from 12-9-88 and as such, was entitled to her attendance from the later date. Further, the supplementary examination commenced on 2-12-88 so the petitioner's attendance in the department should have been calculated not up to 28-11-1988 but till the date of commencement of the supplementary examination. In the earlier writ petition No. 5821 of 1988 there was found three months and 16 days' shortage of attendance of the petitioner till the final examination which commenced on 2-8-88.