K A JAMBHULKAR Vs. MANGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On September 9, 1988 we decided Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1988 filed by the non-applicant No. 1 in this Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 161 of 1988. The non-applicant No. 1 had challenged in the said petition the admission granted to the applicant for post-graduate degree course in the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. The applicant was respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. Her admission was challenged on the ground that she passed the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the third attempt and therefore, as per Clause (f) of rule 6 of the Rules for Admission, she was totally ineligible for admission to the post-graduate registration in the said subject. The applicant was absent and was not also represented in the said writ petition. However, the case of the applicant has not totally gone by default because by defending the orders of the Dean of Indira Gandhi Medical College, granting registration to the applicant in the aforesaid subject, the case of the applicant was in that sense represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the Dean.

(2.) After thus hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Dean, we held in the above writ petition that Clause (f) of rule 6 of the Rules for Admission to the post-graduate courses provides for ineligibility in the candidates for post-graduate registration in two types of cases; (i) the candidate passing the subject concerned at the 3rd or subsequent attempt and (ii) the candidate passing the whole examination in the 4th or subsequent attempt. We, therefore, held that the applicant was ineligible for registration in the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics which subject she admittedly passed in the 3rd attempt. We also considered the question whether we can protect the admission already granted to the applicant in the said subject. We held in that regard that her admission cannot be protected because we have found her altogether ineligible for admission to the post-graduate degree course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

(3.) After this judgment was rendered on September 9, 1988, the applicant has filed the instant Miscellaneous Civil Application on or about 13-9-1988 finding that their admission to the post-graduate degree course is set aside by us in the aforesaid writ petition. The applicant has prayed for setting aside the ex parte judgment against her and for re-hearing of the Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1988. Without going into the question whether the applicant had sufficient cause for remaining absent on the date of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, we had directed the parties that we would hear the matter on merits and in that light consider the question whether we would set aside our judgment or not. Accordingly, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits again particularly because the instant case involves a question about the true interpretation of rules 6 of the Rule for Admission to the post-graduate degree/diploma courses in the medical Colleges of the State Government.