UTPAL DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner is pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery from North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy (NEIAH) an autonomous Institute affiliated to North Eastern Hills University. When the writ petition was on filed on 7th March, 2019, the petitioners ' grievance was that he had not been allowed by the respondent No. 3, to attend the academic classes in the 2nd professional course even though the writ petitioner had appeared in the terminal exam of the 2nd professional course, on the ground that the petitioner had not passed all the subjects in the 1st professional course.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, it is seen that the writ petitioner then passed all the subjects in the 1st professional courses, which entitled him to appear for the 3rd professional examination as per clause 6(c) of the Regulation called the Indian Medicine Central Councils (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulation, 2016 but he was not permitted to do so. According to the learned counsel the petitioner, this fact was brought by way of Misc. Case No. 133 of 2019 and the same was taken on board for consideration by this court.

(3.) Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulations 6 (i) (c) and 6 (ii) (c) provide that a student who has passed all the subjects of the 1st professional examination shall be allowed to appear in the 3rd professional examination, but the student shall not be allowed to appear in the final professional examination unless the student passes all the subjects of 2nd professional examination. He also submits that admittedly the petitioner has not taken admission for the 2nd professional examination in the month of January, 2018 when the course began but has taken admission in the month of April, 2019 after clearing all subjects of the First professional course. He submits that the petitioner however, has attained requisite attendance, with maybe only a minimum shortfall as he has been attending the classes of the 2nd Professional Course. The learned counsel submits that though there should be no legal hurdle for the petitioner to attend the classes for the Third professional examination of the course, he submits that in view of the stipulation contained in Regulation 10 (5) which mandates 75% attendance, the authorities have not permitted the petitioner to attend the 3rd professional course. In this view of the matter, he prays that a mandamus be issued to allow the petitioner to attend the said course.