1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5839-5844 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15016-15021 of 2009)
Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
through Registrar .... Appellant(s)
Versus
P. Amulya & Ors. Etc. .... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 10.06.2009 in WAMP
No. 1327 of 2009 in W.A.No. 676 of 2009 and common order dated
23.06.2009 in WAMP No. 1631 of 2009 in W.A. No. 676 of 2009, WA Nos.
755, 543, 793 & 794 of 2009 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (for short “the
University”) – the appellant herein, filed the above appeals.
Since these appeals are against the impugned orders passed by the
High Court in an appeal filed by the University and of the fact that
the main Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2009 is still pending before the
High Court, there is no need to traverse all the factual details.
3) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-University
submitted that the University conducted the first year MBBS
examination to the students for the year 2005-06 during the period
2
between 05.09.2006 to 10.10.2006 and the results were declared on
02.12.2006. Out of 4,076 students who appeared in the examination,
992 students have failed. Among the failed students, 436 students
had applied for re-verification/re-totalling and out of them 294
students were declared passed. The University declared the results
of only those students who had passed all the three subjects in re-
verification/re-totalling and has not declared the subject-wise
results, since the students who failed in one or two subjects are
not entitled to be promoted for the second year MBBS Course as per
the Medical Council of India Regulations. On receipt of complaints
about certain irregularities in the re-verification/re-totalling
process, the University had cancelled the results. The students
filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court challenging
the action of the University and the same were allowed by the
learned Single Judge. Questioning the same, the University filed
writ appeals and a Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment
dated 20.07.2007, set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the students filed special leave
petitions before this Court and by order dated 13.08.2007, this
Court directed the University to permit the students to continue
their studies on the basis of interim order passed by the High Court
on 13.04.2007. Accordingly, the University permitted those students
to attend the second year classes and also to appear for the second
year MBBS course examination held in October, 2008. On 22.10.2008,
this Court in Sahiti and Others vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599, after
3
recording the statement of the Additional Solicitor General, who
appeared for the University for conducting supplementary examination
of all the students who have yet to clear first year MBBS
examination directed, inter alia, the University to conduct
supplementary examination. Pursuant to the same, the University
conducted special supplementary examination in December, 2008. The
results of the special supplementary examination were declared in
the month of January, 2009. The respondents-students – (1) P.
Amulya (2) Fazam Jahangir (3) Kodali Gopi and (4) T. Venkateswara
Rao had cleared the first year MBBS examination. They are eligible
to be promoted for the second year MBBS only from January, 2009 i.e.
from the date of declaration of results. The remaining students (1)
D. Kaushal (2)Shaik Firoz Basha (3)Reddy Hema Latha (4) Jakeer Shaik
and (5)N. Sindhura were failed and therefore they are not entitled
for promotion to second year MBBS course as per the Regulations.
The University conducted regular supplementary examination of the
first year MBBS in March, 2009 wherein (1)D. Kaushal (2)Shaik Firoz
Basha (3)Reddy Hema Latha (4)Jakeer Shaik and (5)N. Sindhura have
passed the first year MBBS examination. Thus, according to the
University, they are eligible to appear for second year MBBS
examination to be held in September/October, 2010.
5) The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated
10.06.2009, directed the University to declare the results within a
week. Aggrieved by the said order, the University filed an
application seeking modification of the said order contending that
none of the writ petitioners were permitted to attend the classes
4
either by the High Court or by this Court and no one fulfilled the
criteria laid down in the order dated 10.06.2009 passed in W.A.M.P.
No. 1237 of 2009. In spite of the clarification sought, the
Division Bench, vide order dated 23.06.2009, confirmed the order
dated 10.06.2009 with slight modification. Both these orders are
under challenge in these appeals. On 07.07.2009, upon being
mentioned by the University, this Court directed maintenance of
status quo till 17.07.2009. On 17.07.2009, this Court issued notice
returnable on 07.08.2009 and permitted the respondents to file
counter if they so desire and also extended the interim order until
further orders. On 17.08.2009, when the matter came up for hearing,
this Court reserved the orders and in view of urgency in writing
examination passed a brief order which reads thus:
“Pending orders, the students who have submitted their applications
for taking supplementary examination may be allowed to participate
in the examination, provided if they are otherwise eligible.”
6) As said earlier, aggrieved by the various interim orders of
Single Judge/Division Bench of the High Court, the University has
approached this Court. It is relevant to point out that on earlier
occasion, this Court in Sahiti (supra), while disposing the same,
issued certain directions which reads thus:-
43. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents, has stated at the Bar that the
University is inclined to hold supplementary examination of the
students, who have yet to clear the first year MBBS examination.
5
Therefore, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences is hereby
directed to hold supplementary examination of all students who have
yet not cleared the examination of first year MBBS held in
September/October 2006.
44. Pursuant to the interim orders, 294 students were permitted to
prosecute studies in second year MBBS. If any student/students
fails/fail in supplementary examination of first year MBBS
examination, the declaration of the results of such
candidate/candidates who appear for second year MBBS be withheld or
their further course of study be decided based on the Rules and
Regulations of the University applicable to such students. It is
clarified that the abovementioned direction would apply only to
those students who had appeared and failed in the first year MBBS
examination held between 5-9-2006 and 10-10-2006.
45. Subject to the direction given above, this Court finds that no
ground is made out by the appellants to interfere with the ultimate
conclusion reached by the Division Bench and, therefore, the appeals
are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”
7) The controversy according to the University is that this Court
has directed it to conduct supplementary examination only to those
students who have not cleared the first year MBBS examination held
between 05.09.2006 and 10.10.2006. In other words, according to the
University, only 294 students were eligible to pursue second year
MBBS examination. This was not acceptable by the respondents-
students. It was pointed out that by virtue of various interim
6
directions, these students were also permitted to pursue the second
year MBBS examination. It is also the definite case of the
respondents-students that all of them had completed 18 months course
and this Court upheld the cancellation of re-verification/re-
totalling and they were also permitted to write the examinations.
In view of the same, it is the claim of the respondents-students
that the stand of the University that these students stand on a
different footing from others is a misconception and such claim
cannot be countenanced. The Division Bench, while accepting their
stand, also relied on para 44 of the judgment of this Court in
Sahiti (supra), which, according to it, applicable to those students
who appeared and failed in the first year MBBS examination held
between 05.09.2006 and 10.10.2006. In those circumstances, the
Division Bench issued direction to the University to declare the
results of all those students who appeared and failed in the first
year MBBS examination held between 05.09.2006 and 10.10.2006 who
cleared/passed all the three subjects of first year MBBS by January,
2009 who were permitted to pursue second year MBBS course under the
interim orders. When the University again moved before the very
same Bench for modification, it reiterated its earlier decision and
declined to accept the stand of the University. Finally, by order
dated 01.07.2009, in view of the fact that the results have already
been declared, no further cause of action survives for adjudication
and closed the main Writ Appeal No. 676 of 2009.
8) Inasmuch as under the interim orders passed by the Single
Judge/Division Bench of the High Court, the respondents-students
7
were permitted to pursue their studies/write examination, and
results were also ordered to be declared and also order of this
Court dated 17.08.2009 permitting eligible students to participate
in the ensuing examination and of the fact that main W.A. No. 676 of
2009 filed against interim orders itself has been closed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, we are of the view that no further
order is required except directing the disposal of the main writ
petition i.e. WP No. 3749 of 2009 pending before the High Court.
Accordingly, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ
petition preferably within a period of three months. We make it
clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case
raised by both parties. Subject to the above direction, all the
appeals are disposed of. No costs.
………………………………CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
………………………………….J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 28, 2009.