AYUSH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. The application no.49420/19 is disposed of.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 4.6.2019 by which the writ petition filed by four writ petitioners has been dismissed. The appellants- petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition had prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare them eligible to participate in Part-II professional MBBS course supplementary examination, which was scheduled to take place in the month of June, 2019. It may be noted that the examination is to now begin from 4.7.2019. The learned Single Judge relying on Regulation 7(7) of the MCI Regulations and the University Ordinance has dismissed the writ petition. Shri Swadeep Singh Hora, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants-writ petitioners took admission in MBBS course and Part II Examination of MBBS, which took place in August, 2017. The result thereof was declared in October, 2017. However, the university withheld result of 28 students including the appellants. Their result was withheld owing to some gap of communication between the university, college and the Medical Council of India. The appellants were therefore not at fault. In the meanwhile, supplementary examination of Part-I was held in November, 2017. However, the result of those 28 candidates was declared belatedly on 26.12.2017 in which 20 students out of 28 were declared pass. 8 students applied for revaluation, out of which 2 were declared pass in February, 2018. Some of the appellants filed writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5539/2018, Mohammad Hashir & Anr. vs. State & Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9695/ 2018, Amardeep Sharma & Ors. vs. State & Ors. The learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petitions by judgement dated 25.4.2018 and 9.5.2019, holding that since the petitioners were not at fault, therefore, they have a legal right as per Ordinance 267 of the University to write two examination in a year. Since they had lost their chance to write the supplementary examination due to the fault on the part of university, which declared their result belatedly, the university was directed to conduct special supplementary examination of MBBS Part Ist for petitioners. The aforesaid judgements were challenged before the division bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 703/18, RUHS vs. Amardeep Sharma & Ors. and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.719/2018, RUHS vs. Mohammad Hashir & Ors. which upheld the aforesaid judgements by dismissing the appeal dated 1.6.2018.

(3.) It is argued that the special supplementary examination of five students was conducted pursuant to order of this Court in June, 2018. One student Umesh Kumar Nunia did not file writ petition and therefore his/her examination was not held. He however appeared in regular Part-I Main MBBS Examination in July, 2018. He has filed the writ petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur being S.B. Writ petition No.8354/2019, Umesh Kumar Nunia vs. MCI & Ors., wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court by interim order dated 20.6.2019 permitted him to provisionally participate in the supplementary examination commencing from 4.7.2019, however, directed that his result shall be kept in sealed cover. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not allowing the petitioners to appear in the supplementary examination of the MBBS Part-II and therefore appropriate direction to that effect be issued to the respondent- university. Learned counsel argued that even if Regulation 7(7) of the MCI Regulations and Ordinance 268(b) of the University Ordinance provides completion of study of 18 months of Phase-I (Pre Clinical) subjects, in the peculiar facts of the case, when the petitioners cannot be put to fault, this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to do the complete justice to the petitioners. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Bachu Bafan vs. State of Gujarat & Ors .-(1985) 2 SCC 24.