NARSEE RAM MEENA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner passed his MBBS Examination in May 1996 from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. True copy of mark-sheet dt. 27-7-96 has been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition. It is alleged that according to the Ordinance 268 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances, the MBBS Degree shall be conferred after passing the final MBBS Examination and after a candidate has undergone compulsory rotating internship for a period of 12 months. It is further alleged that Ordinance 272 provides that after passing final MBBS Examination, every candidate will be required to undergo compulsory rotating internship to the satisfaction of the University for a period of 12 months so as to be eligible for the award of the Degree of MBBS and full registration. It further provides that the University shall issue a provisional MBBS Pass Certificate on passing the final examination. It further provides that the State Medical Council will grant provisional registration to the candidate on production of provisional MBBS Pass Certificate. The provisional registration will be for a period of one year. It has been averred that after passing the final MBBS Examination the petitioner was granted a provisional MBBS Pass Certificate by the respondent No. 3, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to this petition. It has been further stated that on the basis of the provisional certificate issued by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was issued a provisional registration as provided under the provisions of Ordinance 272 by the Rajasthan Medical Council, true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to this petition.. Initially, the petitioner started his internship from 5-8-96 at M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. Subsequently, he got him transferred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur for completing his internship and joined the same on 24-8-96. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted at General Hospital Sawaimadhopur under the District Level posting for a period of three months and started his internship there with effect from 5-1-97. It has been averred that the petitioner was served with an order dt. 25-1-97 issued from the respondent No. 2 stating therein that in pursuance of telegram dt. 13-1-97 sent by the respondent No. 3 the internship training of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 25-1-97, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to this petition. After receipt of the said order the petitioner is alleged to have approached the respondent No. 2 and also requested the authorities to provide a copy of telegram mentioned in the impugned-order and wanted to know the reason for cancellation of his internship but, the respondents refused to supply the copy of telegram and did not convey the petitioner the reasons of cancellation of his internship. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order and inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in the present petition.

(2.) When this petition came for admission before this Court on 4-2-97 show cause notices were issued to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 only to show cause as to why this petition may not be admitted and disposed of. Notices of stay application were also issued to the aforesaid respondents and interim-order was passed in favour of the petitioner allowing him to continue his internship. The case came again for admission before this Court on 26-3-97 and on that date this Court issued notices to the University of Rajasthan also and directed the University to file counter-affidavit. Though, the counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 but, no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) I have heard Shri Mahendra Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Narendra Jain for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned-order cancelling the internship of the petitioner has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to show cause. The other limb of the argument of the petitioner is that once the respondents allowed the petitioner to undertake one year compulsory rotating internship training after being declared passed in final MBBS Examination in May 1996, the respondents are bound by the principles of promissory estoppel and the impugned-order is liable to be set-aside on the basis of the aforesaid two grounds. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the main contention contained is that in fact the petitioner has secured only 17 marks out of the 40 marks in periodical assessment in Surgery (including Orthopaedic) of Final Year MBBS Examination conducted in May, 1996. However, due to some inadvertence his periodical assessment marks were mentioned as 21 instead of 17. It is alleged that one student namely; Dalpat Singh filed an application before the respondent No. 3 alleging that he got 23 marks out of 40 in periodical assessment whereas, in his mark sheet only 11 marks have been shown in periodical assessment in Subject Surgery and, therefore, his mark sheet should be corrected. After the receipt of the said request made by Mr. Dalpat Singh, the respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 - University of Rajasthan for corrrection in the mark-sheet. It has been alleged that when the result was checked the mistake was discovered in the mark-sheets of 13 students including the petitioner and since it was found that the petitioner secured only 17 marks in periodical assessment of MBBS Examination whereas in the mark-sheet 21 marks were shown therefore, his internship was cancelled. It has been further alleged that mark sheets of all 13 students including the petitioner were corrected and all 13 students including the petitioner were informed vide letter dt. 4-1-1997. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly devoid of merits. The petitioner was fully aware that his internship training was cancelled because of the mistake which was corrected subsequently in the mark-sheet. It is further alleged that the petitioner has concealed this fact from this Court therefore, the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and I am of the opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly un-sustainable and deserve to be rejected. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-University of Rajasthan submitted that in spite of the intimation sent to the University, no reply has been filed however, he was frank enough in conceding that the impugned-order is not sustainable in view of the Ordinance 169-H (2) though, this ground has not been taken by the counsel for the petitioner in the petition nor any argument has been advanced regarding this Ordinance. Before testing the validity of the impugned-order on the aforesaid ground, I consider it proper to refer to the Ordinance 169-H(2) in extenso, which runs as under :-