RAJEEV JOHAR Vs. PRINCIPAL GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a medical student of the Government Medical College, Rohtak, affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. He joined the M.B.B.S. course in Aug., 1981. He appeared in the examination for the First Professional held in Dec., 1982 but failed in all the three subjects. However, he was permitted to join the next higher class in terms of clause 2.2 of the Ordinance relating to Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) of the Kurukshetra University Calendar as the M. D. University has adopted the regulations of that University. In April 1983, he again took First Professional examination and passed in two out of the three subjects and got 'reappear' in the third subject viz. that of Anatomy. Since he could not pass in all the subjects in April, he was not permitted to continue to attend the next higher class of Second Professional in view of the bar created under clause 2.2 of the Ordinance.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court since he was not permitted to attend the classes for the Second Professional. Vide this Court's order dated 26th July, 1983, at the time of motion hearing, the petitioner was allowed to continue to attend the Second Professional classes at his own risk and the writ petition was directed to be set down for hearing within three months. When the writ petition came up for hearing before my learned brother D. S. Tewatia, J., he expressed certain reservations as to the correctness of the law laid down in Rajinder Khandpur v. The Director-Principal, Medical College, Rohtak, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 295, and referred the case to a larger Bench. It is how this case has come up before this Bench.

(3.) The sole question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner could be allowed to attend the next higher class of 2nd Professional when he could not pass in the examination held in April, 1983. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since he had passed in two papers and in the third paper he was required to 'reappear', he could not be said to have failed in the First Professional examination within the meaning of clause 2.2 of the Ordinance. It would be profitable to reproduce clause 2.2 here. It reads :