M SUSHMA Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment D/- 27th Mar. 1981, of our learned brother Punnayya, J., dismissing W. P. No. 707/81.

(2.) The material facts can now be noticed. In all 19 students, including the six appellants and respondents 5 to 8 sat for the M.D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) Part-II examinations held by the Osmania University in January, 1981, at the Osmania Medical College and the Gandhi Medical College centres. 12 of them including appellants 5 & 6 sat for the examination at the Osmania Medical College centre and seven of them, including the first four appellants sat for the examination at the Gandhi Medical College Centre. M. D. course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics is a clinical subject course. The subjects are divided into two parts; Part-1 comprises of basic science and Part-11 comprises of other subjects. Part-I examination was held at the end of the 1st year and it is common ground that the candidates in question have all passed their Part-I examination and became eligible to sit for the Part-II examination held in January, 1981. The 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 those three papers was held on the 3rd, 5th and 6/01/1981. Those papers were set by two external examiners, one Dr. Sheela Rajaratnam of Stanley Medical College, Madras and another Dr. Padma Rao of Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. The internal examiners are respectively Dr. T. Seetha and Dr. Khursheeda Begum for the Osmania Medical College centre and Dr. Lokabai and Dr. Savitri for the Gandhi Medical College centre. The oral and practical examinations for all these candidates were held at the respective centres on the 10th, 11th and 12th of January, 1981. Under the Osmania University Rules, Regulations and Syllabus for M.D. and M.S. (Faculty of Medicine), the examiners shall be severally and jointly responsible for all the examinations and the marks shall not ordinarily be assigned to any part of the examination, but the examiners concerned shall confer after the examination is complete, and shall report whether the candidate has passed with honours, passed or failed. The final result will be incorporated only after all the examiners of the aforesaid two centres conferred with one another and finalised the result on the evening of 12/01/1981 and all of them signed on the tabular form prepared to that effect and the said form indicating the result of the examination was sent to the University. Such result revealed that out of the 19 candidates the six appellants and two other candidates who are not parties before us were shown as passed and respondents 5 to 8 and six others who are not parties before us were shown as failed and the remaining 19th candidate was shown as failed because of his absence at the oral and practical and clinical tests. In making such evaluation, Dr. Padma Rao maintained a note with regard to each of the candidates indicating her evaluation during the aforesaid examination. She also happened to be the external examiner for D.G.O. held at Gandhi Hospital on 13/01/1981. She took along with her the record she maintained about the M. D. examinations which were over on 12-1" 1981. On 13/01/1981, she discovered that somebody removed the said personal record prepared by her and she informed the Dean and the Super-intendent of the Gandhi Hospital about the loss of the personal record maintained by her. A news item dated 16/01/1981 with some corrections made in the personal record of Dr. Padma Rao appeared in the Eenadu edition of 17/01/1981, a local daily published from Hyderabad. The said news item proceeded to say that Sri A. Madan Mohan, the Minister for Health ordered an enquiry to be made into the allegations made by the students of Gandhi Medical College regarding the irregularities allegedly committed in finalising the list. Respondents 5 to 7 made a similar representation to the 3rd respondent, the Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University who, by his proceedings dated 2 2/01/1981 appointed an enquiry committee consisting of Prof. T. Navneeth Rao, Director, P.G. Centre, Prof. P.S. Ramachandran, Principal, University College of Technology and Sri P. Narsimha Reddy, Controller of Examinations to enquire into the alleged irregularities by the examiners of M.D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) examinations held in January, 1981 at Gandhi Medical College centre and submit its report before 2/01/1981. The said committee held the enquiry during which, some of the aggrieved students, the four internal examiners, the member and the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine were examined. It is, however, common ground that neither the six appellants nor the two other candidates, who passed the examinations nor the two external examiners Dr. Sheela Rajaratnam and Dr. Padma Rao were examined by the committee. The committee, on consideration of the various statements made before it, came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the complainants in regard to the conduct of M. D. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) examinations held in January, 1981 are not established. They, however, observed :

(3.) The third respondent has accepted the recommendation of the Committee and the University passed orders on 6-2-1981 cancelling only the practical examinations of M.D. (Gynaecology an Obstetrics) conducted in the month of January, 1981. The six appellants thereupon filed W. P. No. 7,07/81 on 11-2-1981 for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent University to publish the results of the examination held in January, 1981 on basis of their performance at the examination already held and to declare as illegal and void the action of the third respondent in cancelling the examination held in January, 1981 and in proposing to hold a re-examination. According to the appellants, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the examination which was held in accordance with the regulations framed "by the University and that the said cancellation ordered without notice to them is violative of the principles of natural justice and the appellants who were declared passed because of their performance in the examination cannot be required to sit for the practical examination over again when there is no malpractice alleged against any of the candidates, including the appellants. They have also stated that the Committee arrived at its conclusions without examining the passed candidates and the two external examiners and in making their recommendations, they have ignored the scheme of the examination for a Post-Graduate degree in the Faculty of Medicine and have misdirected themselves in making the recommendation that the practical examination alone could he conducted separately and their performance evaluated by persons different from persons who evaluated their performance in theory. According to the appellants, the result of the examinations held for other Faculties were declared on the basis of the results arrived at by the examiners on similar evaluations made by them and the action of tine third respondent in adopting a different procedure in dealing with candidates who appeared (or the M.D. (in Gynaecology and Obstetrics) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Some of the appellants have also given some special reasons personal to themselves how it is difficult for them to sit for the practical examination proposed to be held by the University. Subsequent to the filing of the writ, the first respondent issued a press note on 17-2-1981 stating that the practical examinations only would be held on 25th, 26th and 27th of February, 1981. Respondents 1 and 3 alone have, in their counter, taken the stand that the third respondent Vice-Chancellor has jurisdiction to order the enquiry and that the report of the Enquiry Committee has brought into prominence that the relative merits of the candidates have not been properly assessed by the examiners and that the action of the Vice-Chancellor was subsequently ratified by the Syndicate and as the cancellation was done to undo the injustice which the candidates, in general, have suffered, there is no need to give individual notice to any of the appellants or the two external examiners and there is no discrimination made against the appellants and whatever was done was only in the interest of maintaining the academic standards and to ensure fairness in the process of examinations and that the personal difficulties set out by any of the appellants are not valid grounds for not proceeding with the practical examinations as per the programme of the University, Respondents 2 and 4 who are respectively the State of A. P., and the Director of Medical Education did not file any counter. Respondents 5 to 8, on whose complaint the enquiry was ordered by the third respondent, have come on record on their application, but did not file any counter.