IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.5227 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Dr.D.Gowri sankar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.National Board of Examinations,
Rep.by its Assistant Director,
NAMS Buildings,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg (Ring Road),
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110 029.
2.Kilpauk Medical College,
Rep.by its Dean,
E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Chennai 600 010. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to publish the result of the petitioner for the final theory examinations held on 14.06.2008 and 15.06.2008 for the DNB Course and consequently issue the certificate for the DNB course.
For petitioner : Mr.G,Arul Murugan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Muthusamy for
Anan, Samy & Dhruva
For 2nd respondent : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, (G.A)
O R D E R
The petitioner is a Doctor, and he passed M.B.B.S. Degree in the year 1999. Thereafter, he applied for Diplomate of National Board Course with the first respondent. He appeared for the Primary screening test that was conducted in January 2000. The first respondent issued a certificate dated 17.04.2000 that he successfully qualified in the primary examination conducted by the Board in January 2000.
2.Thereafter, he got admitted for training in the second respondent College from 01.10.2001. He underwent training for three years up to 30.09.2004. On completion of three years training, he appeared for the final theory examinations during the years 2005 to 2007 (two semesters per year) he failed in all those examinations.
3. He applied to the first respondent to appear for the final theory examinations that was to be conducted during June 2008, as he failed in the examinations as stated above. The first respondent sent a letter dated 12.05.2008 seeking clarification that the training completion certificate sent by the petitioner was not correct as the training date has been wrongly mentioned in the certificate and the correct date must be from 01.10.2002 to 30.09.2005, instead of from 01.10.2001 to 30.09.2004. The petitioner sent a reply dated 24.05.2008, stating that he underwent training from 01.10.2001 to 30.09.2004 in the second respondent College and also the second respondent issued a certificate on 04.10.2004 to the aforesaid effect.
4. Accepting the explanation, the first respondent issued Hall ticket to the petitioner and he also appeared for the examinations conducted on 14.06.2008 and 15.06.2008. However, the results are yet to be published for the petitioner as results are withheld. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to publish the result for the final theory examination held on 14.06.2008 and 15.06.2008 for the Diplomate of National Board Course .
5. Notice of motion was ordered on 01.04.2009.
6. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and also typed set of papers.
7. Heard Mr.G.Arul Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the first responent and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel for the second respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the first respondent erroneously proceeded in the letter dated 12.05.2008 that the training commenced on 01.10.2002. On the other hand, the training commenced on 01.10.2001, as per the certificate issued by the second respondent. The said certificate was sent to the first respondent and the first respondent accepted the same and based on the said certificate, he was permitted to appear for the theory examinations held during 2005 to 2007( two semesters per year) as stated above. Hence, the first respondent is estopped from stating that the training is only from 01.10.2002. It is also submitted that it is not known on what basis the first respondent proceeded that the training commenced from only 01.10.2002 instead of 01.10.2001.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was allowed to appear for examinations by accepting the certificate dated 04.10.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner underwent training from 01.10.2001 to 30.09.2004 for six times and also the 7th time during the year June 2008. The first respondent now cannot withhold the result, on the spurious ground that there is discrepency relating to the training period.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that as per their register, the date of entry into training was on 01.10.2002. Therefore, the certificate given by the second respondent was not correct. Tthe xerox copy of the relevant page of the register is enclosed in their typed set.
11. I have considered this submissions on either side. Perused the records.
12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent having accepted the certificate dated 4.10.2004 issued by the second respondent to the effect that the petitioner underwent training from 01.10.2001 to 31.09.2004 and having permitted to appear for the examinations during 2005 to 2007, the first respondent could not now state that the petitioner could have joined only on 01.02.2002 as per their records.
13. Infact, if the petitioner joined the training on 01.10.2002 he could not have been permitted to appear for the examinations in June 2005, since he did not complete three years training as on June 2005.
14. Further more, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the first respondent wrote a letter dated 12.05.2008 seeking clarification from the petitioner as to whether he joined the training on 01.10.2002, the petitioner sent a letter dated 24.05.2002 by giving explanation that he joined training on 01.10.2001. Accepting the explanation, the petitioner was permitted by the first respondent to appear for the examinations during June 2008 and hence the first respondent is estopped from putting forth their plea that the training commenced only on 01.10.2002.
15. More importantly, when this Court directed the first respondent to produce the concern register, it is not produced. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent states that the register is not traceable. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Shri Krishnan .Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 311, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner applies to the facts of this case.
16. Taking into consideration and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to publish the result of the petitioner for the final theory examinations conducted during June 2008 within a period of six weeks from today. However, the direction as to issuance of certificate for DNB Course would not arise at this stage. Only if the petitioner successfully passes the examinations, he is entitled to receive the certificate.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
kkd
To
1.The Assistant Director,
National Board of Examinations,
NAMS Buildings,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg (Ring Road),
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110 029.
2.The Dean,
Kilpauk Medical College,
E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Chennai 600 010