M SUSHMA Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, respondents 5 to 8 and eight others sat for the M.D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) Part II Examination held in January, 1981 at Osmania College and Gandhi Medical College Centres. While they were, waiting for the results, photostat copies of the result sheets of the said examination were distributed on 16th January, 1981, to the delegates that attended the conference of Association of Continual Medical Education held at Osmania Medical College and the same also was published in the Daily Newspaper "Eanadu" on 19th January, 1981. On 21st January, 1981, respondents 5 to 8 approached the Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, the 3rd respondent, and presented a representation that the grades given to them originally during the examinations were altered, and requested him to enquire into the irregularities committed by the examiners and to declare the results in their favour as per the original valuation of the results. On 22nd January, 1981, the Joint Action Committee of all the Student Unions of Medical Faculty of Osmania University also made, a representation requesting the Vice-Chancellor to hold enquiry into the irregularities committed by the examiners. The Vice-Chancellor of Osmania University (3rd respondent) felt it necessary to institute an enquiry into the allegations and hence appointed on 22nd January, 1981, a three-men committee consisting of Prof. T. Navaneetha Rao, Director P. G. Centres, as the Chairman, Prof. P. S. Ramachandran, Principal, University College of Technology, as member and P. Narasimha Reddy, Controller of Examinations, as Member convenor to enquire into the alleged irregularities committed by the examiners at Gandhi Medical College Centre and directed the Committee to submit its report before 25th January, 1981. The committee held enquiries into the matter and submitted its report to the Vice- chancellors stating inter alia that the performance of candidates and their valuation in practical examinations have influenced their performance in theory examination and vice versa and this irregularity was evident in addition to other things from the changes made by the examiners in the gradation list and the committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the examination, as a whole, was vitiated. The Committee,, therefore, opined ' that the practical examinations in M.D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) held in January, 1981, should be cancelled and the answer scripts of the theory examinations should be revalued by any other two external examiners from outside the State. The Vice- Chancellor (3rd respondent) accepted the recommendations of the committee and the University has passed orders on 6th February, 1981, cancelling only the practical examinations of M.D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) conducted in the month of January, 1981, and issued a press note on 17th February, 1981, stating that the said practical examinations' will be held on 25th, 26th and 27th February, 1981.

(2.) The petitions were, therefore, aggrieved with the action taken by the Vice-Chancellors for the cancellation of the examination and for re-examination. Hence, they filed this writ petition for the issuance of directions in the nature of mandamus to the effect that (1) Osmania University should publish the results of the examinations held in January. 1981 of M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) on the basis of the performance of the students at the examination; and (2) declare the action of the Vice-Chancellors in cancelling the said examination and proposing to hold a re-examination, as illegal and void.

(3.) Out of the 18 students whose names were given in the Annexure of the writ petition, 11 candidates sat for the examination at the Osmania Medical College Centre and 7 at the Gandhi Medical College Centre. The petitioners contend that the M.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is known as "a clinical subject course". The subjects are divided in two parts-Part I comprising of basic sciences and Part II comprising of other subjects. Part I examination was held at the end of the first year and all of them were successful in the same. Part II examination consists of (a) written, (b) oral and practical; and (c) clinical. The written examination comprises of three papers and the examination in this was, held on 3rd, 5th and 6th January, 1981. Oral and Practical examinations were held simultaneously on 10th, 11th and 12th January, 1981. The examinations were held at the said two centres and batches of students were examined at different times. All the three questions papers were set by the external examiners. The two external examiners are (1) Dr. Sheela Rajarathnam from Tamil Nadu and Dr. (Mrs.) Padma Rao from Manipal. The internal examiners are Dr. (Mrs.) T, Seetha of the Osmania Medical College and Dr. (Mrs.) Khursheeda Begum from Osmania Medical College and Dr. (Mrs.) Lokabai from Gandhi Medical College and Dr. (Mrs.) P. Savithri of Gandhi Medical College. The same time pattern and ratio of internal and external examiners was allotted for all post-graduate examinations conducted by the Osmania University in this Year. The examinations for this course were held in the normal and usual course. In the normal course, the results of all post-graduate examinations in M.D. and M.S., would be announced simultaneously in about a month's time after the examinations. They are all expecting that the results would be announced in the normal course and they were confident that having regard to the performance they would be successful in the examination. While matters stand so, they were surprised to see the news item in 'siasat' Daily to the effect that the examinations held for their speciality are cancelled and there will be fresh examinations. Then, they made enquiries at the University and they were informed that there will be re-examination in the oral, practical and clinical examinations. On their further ennuiries about the reason, the Authorities declined to divulge any reason nor anything was communicated to them in writing inspite of their request. The petitioners further contend that no notice was given to them about the proposed drastic action. Further, it would be physically not practicable for some of the petitioners to appear again at the re-examination. The 1st petitioner was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and it would not be possible for her to re-appear for the examination within the next six months or so. Another candidate by name Dr. Rafia had left the country to job her husband after finishing the examination and it would not be possible for her to come back to appear again within a reasonable time. Similarly, petitioner No. 5 Dr. Subhashini was to fly on 7th to join her husband in Nigeria and was expecting: an assignment there. But she had to cancel her booking at the last moment on coming to know the news about the re-examination. Petitioner No. 2 Dr. Kamala Kotacha was in Government service and was given study-leave for this course, and after finishing her examination she had joined duty as Government servant. It would, therefore, be very difficult for her to study again for the examination if the re-examination was held. It would not be possible to get leave for those who are already in service. Many of the petitioners are expecting jobs and it may not be possible for them to leave their jobs and come back and appear again for the examination . The petitioners further contend that the action of the Vice-Chancellor in cancelling the examination is totally without jurisdiction and it is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, and the cancellation of the examination without giving notice or opportunity to the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice and is, therefore, illegal. They further contend that the action of the Authorities in cancelling the examination without any material or enquiry is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, that the action of the University in cancelling the examination' is contrary to the provisions of the Osmania University Act, and the Statutes Ordinance and Regulations framed thereunder that it is the Syndicate which is responsible for the conduct of the examination and publication of the results and that the examination has been cancelled to help a candidate who is related to a Minister and who had not done well in the examination and the action of the Authorities is, therefore, not a bona fide exercise of the statutory power but only done to help some influential candidate.