High Court Kerala High Court

Binumol Abraham vs M.G.University And Others on 16 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Binumol Abraham vs M.G.University And Others on 16 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17131 of 2008(M)



1. BINUMOL ABRAHAM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. M.G.UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/01/2009

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                          ---------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No. 17131 of 2008
                      ------------------------------------
                Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that she is entitled to

appear for the first year M.B.B.S examination scheduled to be held in

August 2008, along with 2007-2008 batch of students. In the first year

of her studies, petitioner had only 58% attendance and hence, was

ineligible to appear for the University Examination. According to the

petitioner and as certified by the College, she had also attended 1st year

classes in the succeeding academic year and made up the shortage. It is

in that basis, she seeks the reliefs in this writ petition. By an order

dated 18/08/2008, this court directed the respondents to allow the

petitioner to write the examination, provisionally and subject to further

orders.

3. Medical Council of India, has now by its letter dated

1/10/2009 clarified that the petitioner can be considered to appear for

the first year of M.B.B.S examination along with 2007-2008 batch of

students, provided she fulfills 75% attendance requirement laid down

W.P.(C) No. 17131/ 2008
2

in Chapter IV, Regulation 12(1) of the Graduate Medical Education,

1997 as amended in 2003, which is extracted below for reference;

” 12(1) ATTENDANCE:

75% attendance in a subject for appearing in the

examination is compulsory inclusive of attendance in non-

lecture teaching i.e. seminars, group discussions, tutorials,

demonstrations, practicals, hospital (Teritary, Secondary,

Primary) posting and bed side clinics etc.”

The 4th respondent, Principal of the College has issued a

certificate to the following effect.

” This is to certify that Miss. Binumol Abraham is a

bonafide student of this Medical College, she having been

admitted to the MBBS Course on 26/7/2006. Since she

was not permitted to register for the University Exams with

the 2006-2007 batch students, she was asked to attend

classes with the 2007-08 batch. Her total percentage of

attendance in the three subjects is as follows:

W.P.(C) No. 17131/ 2008
3

Sl.No. subject Total attendance percentage
Theory Practical
1 Anatomy 86.29 84.44

2 Physiology 86.39 83.72
3 Biochemistry 81.18 90.48

4. From the certificate issued by the 4th respondent, it is

evident that the petitioner satisfies the requirement of the Regulation 12

(1) extracted above.

5. On the materials available, I have no reason to doubt the

genuineness of the certificate issued by the 4th respondent. From the

certificate, it is evident that the petitioner has attended the 1st year class

along with 2007-2008 batch and thus made up the shortage of

attendance, which occurred in the previous year due to the ailment that

she suffered.

6. On the other hand, if the interpretation that is now

canvassed by the University is accepted, the student will have to now

seek readmission and undergo the course in the 1st year afresh from

2008-2009 and thereafter attend the remaining course also. This will

result in the student loosing 3 to 4 years. Such an interpretation is too

harsh and therefore cannot be preferred in the factual background of

W.P.(C) No. 17131/ 2008
4

this case.

7. In view of the above, it is directed that results of

examination written by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated

18/08/2008 will be declared by the University on the production of

copy of this judgment. In view of this stand taken by the Medical

Council as above, challenge against Exhibit P7 has to be upheld and the

said order is quashed.

Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm