W.P.No.7324/2010
Resabh Kumar Namdev State of M.P. & others
22.9.2010
Shri L.P.Yadav, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for respondent no.3.
The petitioner has sought following reliefs :-
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that
Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ/direction to respondent for permitting
the petitioner in appearance in the exam held
from 7.6.2010 in the interest of justice.
Any other relief which the Hon’ble High
Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be also
granted in favour of petitioner.”
The case of petitioner is that, petitioner is a student of Ist
year BHMS Degree course and is studying in Govt.
Homoeopathic Medical College, Bhopal affiliated to respondent
no.3. This is five year Degree course. The petitioner has also
appeared four times in the examination, but could not succeed
and has sought relief in this petition to direct respondents to
allow one more chance to the petitioner to appear in the
examination.
The prayer made by the petitioner is vehemently opposed
by learned counsel for respondent no.3, who submitted that as
per regulation 14 petitioner is not entitled for any further
opportunity to appear in the Ist Year examination.
In reply to this, learned counsel for petitioner submitted
that as per decision of respondents Annexure R-3/2 and order
passed in Writ petition No.2184/2008 (Hiresh Shrivastava and
others Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 21.2.2008,
petitioner is entitled for one more opportunity.
So far as Annexure R-3/2 is concerned, it relates to a
decision of Education Committee of Central Council of
W.P.No.7324/2010
Resabh Kumar Namdev State of M.P. & others
Homoeopathy in which a resolution was passed which reads
thus :-
“The Education Committee resolved as under :-
The Education Committee considered the
matter alongwith letter No.1447/Conf./08 dated
06.06.08 of Barkatullah Vishwavidhyalaya and
resolved as under :-
“It is resolved that students of BHMS
Course need to appear in examinations and pass
in the subjects as per provisions of Homoeopathy
(Degree Course) Regulations, 1983 (as amended
in 2003 & 2005) including I-BHMS examinations.
The students study basic medical subjects like
Anatomy & Physiology (including Biochemistry) in
I-BHMS Course to understand normal structure
and functions of human beings besides basics of
Organon of Medicine & Homoeopathic Philosophy
& Materia Medica as well as another pre-clinical
subject of Pharmacy; and even if in four chances
they cannot pass I-BHMS exams, then how they
can understand the more complex subjects like
Pathology, Practice of Medicine, Gynaecology &
Obstetrics, Surgery etc. in Second BHMS Course.
However, Education Committee
recommended to allow one more but final chance
to appear in the I-BHMS exam in the respective
subjects where students are yet to pass the
subjects maximum upto two subjects but this
should not be taken as a precedence.
A note of dissent given by Dr.C.Nayak,
Member, is enclosed.
The Executive Committee agreed with
the resolution of Education Committee in the
matter. It desired that the decision taken may
be informed to all concerned authorities as well
as to the petitioners in the Court case.”
From the perusal of aforesaid, it is apparent that the
aforesaid resolution was passed as a special case with a specific
note that it should not be taken as a precedent, so the
petitioner is not entitled for any benefit by issuing a writ of
mandamus against the respondents to permit petitioner to allow
one opportunity to appear in the examination. In Hiresh
W.P.No.7324/2010
Resabh Kumar Namdev State of M.P. & others
Shrivastava (supra) this Court considering the case of the
petitioner passed an order, which reads thus :-
“21.2.2008
By this writ petition the petitioners have
prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to allow them to
appear in B.H.M.S. Ist Professional Examination
or to conduct the separate examination in
relation to the petitioners.
Mr.A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned
Government Advocate for the State fairly stated
that the controversy is covered by the order
dated 28.1.2008 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.950/2008 wherein following order has
been passed :-
“Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court the petitioners have prayed for
issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent
No.3 to relax the conditions by exercising power
conferred under Homeopathy (Degree Course)
BHMS, Regulations, 1983 (As Amendment upto
September, 2003). Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn
out attention to Regulation 14 and specifically
14(iii) of the aforesaid Regulations. It is further
submitted by him that earlier the Central Council
of Homeopathy had relaxed the Regulation. We
do not intend to enter into the said spectrum.
However, as the Council has to relax the
regulation on certain parameters, at presently
advised, the respondent No.3 shall consider the
case of the petitioners within the permissible
parameters as envisaged under Regulation 14.”
The aforesaid direction shall apply in full
force to the case at hand. In view of the
aforesaid we only direct that the respondents
shall complete the exercise within six weeks
from the date of receipt of the order passed
today. Needless to emphasize, it will be open to
the petitioners to approach the said authority
within the stipulated period of time.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
C.C., as per rules in course of the day.”
As this Court in Hiresh Shrivastava (supra) as issued
W.P.No.7324/2010
Resabh Kumar Namdev State of M.P. & others
the aforesaid directions, we find it appropriate to dispose of this
matter with the same directions which were issued by this Court
in Hiresh Shrivastava. The aforesaid directions shall be
applicable in the case of petitioner, in so far as they are
applicable in the case of petitioner. No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
M.