C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No. 15852 of 2008
Date of Decision:- 10.07.2009
1. C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008
Jasdeep Singh .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)
2. C.W.P.No.15857 of 2008
Gourav Sharma .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)
3. C.W.P.No.16047 of 2008
Sumeet Verma and others .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
4. C.W.P.No.16052 of 2008
Ajay Kumar and anr. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
5. C.W.P.No.16056 of 2008
Harmanpreet Singh and anr. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -2-
6. C.W.P.No.16124 of 2008
Gautam Siddharatha and ors. .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
7. C.W.P.No.16205 of 2008
Amit Minocha .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & ors. ....Respondent(s)
8. C.W.P.No.16558 of 2008
Sumeet Sood .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
9. C.W.P.No.16559 of 2008
Rahul Thaman .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
10. C.W.P.No.16809 of 2008
Anupam Sharma .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -3-
11. C.W.P.No.5762 of 2009
Nitin Bagga .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
12. C.W.P.No.6513 of 2009
Kulwinder Kaur .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & ors. ....Respondent(s)
13. C.W.P.No.6703 of 2009
Arshdeep Singh and others .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & anr. ....Respondent(s)
14. C.W.P.No.14156 of 2008
Charanjeet Kaur, B.Sc. (Nursing) .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)
15. C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008,
Nisha Kalyan, B.Sc. (Nursing) .....Petitioner(s)
vs.
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences ....Respondent(s)
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -4-
***
CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih
***
Present:- Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Mr. Arun Takhi,
Ms.Anupama Takhi, Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Mr.Ravi Kant,
Mr.R.L.Luthra, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, Mr.T.S.Dhindsa,
Mr.Ashish Rawal, Ms.Meenu Sharma, Advocates,
for the respondents.
***
Augustine George Masih, J.
Through this order, we propose to dispose of Civil Writ
Petitions No.14156 of 2008, 15852 of 2008, 15857 of 2008, 16047 of
2008, 16052 of 2008, 16056 of 2008, 16124 of 2008, 16159 of 2008, 16205
of 2008, 16558 of 2008, 16559 of 2008, 16809 of 2008, 5762 of 2009, 6513
of 2009 and 6703 of 2009.
All the above-mentioned writ petitions relate to the students
pursuing Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Courses, wherein
they are claiming that they are not being permitted to take the next Higher
Professional Examination although they have not as yet availed/exhausted
all the available chances to clear the earlier Lower Professional
Examination provided to them under the Ordinance except for the
petitioner-Nitin Bagga in C.W.P.No.5762 of 2009 wherein he has availed
of all the four chances to clear the Second Professional Examination and is
studying in the third professional but his form is not being sent for taking
the Third Professional Examination as he has failed to clear the Second
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -5-
Professional Examination. Apart from these cases, C.W.P.No.14156 of
2008 and C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008 are the cases preferred by the students
pursuing Bachelor of Science in Nursing (4 years) Degree Programme
(Annual System) wherein they have not been allowed to take the next
Higher Professional Examination as they had not cleared the earlier Lower
Professional Examination. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are
basing their claim on a judgment of this Court in Aseempreet Kundi and
another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (1) SCT 683, to contend that
although they may not have cleared all the subjects of the earlier Lower
Professional Course but since they had completed the academic period of
studies to take the next Higher Professional Course Examination, they will
be eligible to appear in this Higher Professional Examination as they have a
right to clear the earlier Lower Professional Examination within the
permissible attempts provided under the Regulations, which have yet not
been exhausted by them. The petitioners have further placed reliance on
Division Bench judgments of this Court in Parampreet Kaur and others
vs. State of Punjab and others, (C.W.P.No.3979 of 2007 decided on
16.4.2007), Himanshu and another vs. Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences and others, (C.W.P.No.4487 of 2007 decided on 9.5.2007), and
Bikramjit Singh and another vs. Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences and others, (C.W.P.No.17180 of 2006 decided on 16.11.2006).
Upon notice having been issued, the respondent-University in
its written statement has taken a stand that the requirement of the
Ordinances governing the Course mandates the clearance of all the
subjects of the earlier Professional Course before a candidate becomes
eligible to take the next Professional Examination. Reliance has been
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -6-
placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tarun Mohan and
others vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others,
(C.W.P.No.17396 of 2007 decided on 29.11.2007), wherein it has been held
that a candidate cannot claim a right to appear in the next Higher
Professional Examination without passing the earlier Lower Professional
Examination as mandated under the Ordinances governing the course in
question.
These cases came up before a Division Bench for motion
hearing on 30.9.2008, when apart from noticing the conflict in the view
taken by this Court in the above-mentioned decisions, also found that the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Council of
Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab and others vs. Suchintan and
others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1761, has not been examined in any of
the judgments which may have a bearing on the controversy raised and
involved in the present set of writ petitions. Keeping in view the
interest of the students and the fact that the interpretation of the
Ordinances will have a recurring effect and also to resolve the dispute
between the conflicting views taken by the Benches of this Court, the
matter was referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative decision. This is
how these cases have come up before this Bench for consideration.
Counsel representing the petitioners in these writ petitions
submit that the petitioners are entitled to four attempts, including the first
attempt in which they were eligible to appear, to clear each professional
examination. They having availed of three attempts, in which they failed to
clear all the subjects in the Second Professional Examination, still have one
more chance left. Counsel submit that the petitioners are not being allowed
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -7-
to take the Third Professional Examination. Reference has been made to
Ordinance 10 ( iv ) wherein it has been stated that the candidates who
failed in one or more subjects of the Second Professional Examination shall
be allowed to clear all the subjects of the Second Professional BAMS
Examination in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in
which they were eligible to appear. On this basis, it has been submitted by
the counsel for the petitioners that although the petitioners have been
promoted under the Ordinance to keep term in Third Professional Course
and they have indeed attended the theory and practical classes and have
fulfilled the academic requirements of period of study of that professional
but still they are not being allowed to appear in the Third Professional
Examination only on the ground that they have not passed all the subjects of
the Second Professional Examination. It has been submitted that there is
direct conflict between Clause (iii) and Clause (iv) of Ordinance 10. A right
which has been conferred by Clause (iv) of the Ordinance on the one hand
to clear the subjects of the Second Professional Examination in four
consecutive attempts has been taken away by clause (iii) of the same
Ordinance on the other hand without the petitioners having availed of all
four consecutive attempts. It appears to be a very anomalous situation
where four consecutive attempts, including the first attempt in which they
were eligible to appear in the examination, have been granted and they have
been also promoted to the next Higher Professional but merely on account
of their failure to clear all subjects of the Second Professional Examination
in three attempts without availing the fourth attempt, they are being
debarred from appearing in the Third Professional Examination. This,
according to the petitioners, would lead to withdrawing a benefit which has
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -8-
been conferred upon the candidates by one clause of the Ordinance by
another clause which does not allow them to avail the benefit so conferred
upon such candidates. It has, thus, been submitted by the counsel for the
petitioners that a harmonious construction of the two clauses of the
Ordinances needs to be resorted to so that the petitioners are not deprived of
a beneficial right and they do not lose valuable time leading to they being
forced to sit out because of clause (iii) of Ordinance 10 which mandates
clearance of all subjects before taking the Third Professional Examination.
Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioners be allowed to take
the Third Professional Examination along with the fourth attempt to clear all
papers of the Second Professional Examination available to them under
Ordinance 10 (iv) so that no clause of the Ordinance is offended and the
petitioners do not lose valuable time of their courses and do not lag behind
and rather complete the courses with other batch-mates. In support of these
submissions, reliance has been placed by the counsel on a judgment of a
Single Judge of this Court in Aseempreet Kundi’s case (supra) which was
followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bikramjit Singh’s case
(supra) and thereafter in Himanshu’s case (supra). Reliance has also been
placed on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Parampreet
Kaur’s case (supra). In view of these judgments of this Court, counsel for
the petitioners submit that similar relief deserves to be granted to the
petitioners in the present writ petitions for being similarly situated.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-University
submitted that the provisions as contained in the Ordinance governing the
Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Science Course are clear and unambiguous.
When the language itself is clear, no other meaning except what is stated in
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -9-
the Ordinance should be taken to be correct. The question of harmonious
construction or the application of the principles of reading down would not
come into effect as in Aseempreet Kundi’s case (supra). He urged that the
offending Ordinance which came up for interpretation before this Court in
Aseempreet Kundi’s case (supra) stands amended and clause (vii) of
Ordinance 5 (d) deleted and in any case, the same would have no bearing
on the present cases as the Ordinance under question in this set of cases is
different from what was in question before the learned Single Judge in
Aseempreet Kundi’s case (supra). He contended that the claim of the
petitioners relates to Ordinance 10 (iii) of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine
and Surgery which has been dealt with and authoritatively decided against
the students by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarun Mohan
vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others
(C.W.P.No.17396 of 2007 decided on 29.11.2007) holding therein that the
requirement of the Ordinance 10 Clause (iii) was not in conflict with
Regulation 8.1 of Indian Medicines Central Council (Minimum Standards
of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986, framed under the
provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. He further
argued that the Court had held that the petitioner in that case could not,
thus, claim a right to appear in the 3rd Professional Examination without
passing all the subjects of the 2nd Professional Examination. He, on this
basis, submitted that judgment in Tarun Mohan’s case (supra), which
relates to Ordinance 10 (iii) of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and
Surgery Course, is fully applicable to the present set of writ petitions as the
same ordinance is in question here, compliance of requirement as mandated
therein before being eligible to take the 3rd Professional Examination,
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -10-
having been upheld by this Court.
We have given our careful consideration with submissions
made at the Bar and gone through the records of the cases.
The precise question which needs to be answered in the
present cases is; whether a candidate who has failed in one or more
subjects in an earlier Professional Examination and who has been
permitted to attend classes in the next Higher Professional Course as
per the Ordinance and having completed the period of study of
the said Higher Professional Course, can be allowed to take the
Examination of the Higher Professional Course without clearing all the
subjects of the Lower Professional Examination, when the attempts
provided for clearing the Lower Professional Examination under the
Ordinance are still available and have not been exhausted by the
candidate?
Answer to this question would lie in the Ordinances governing
the courses.
Firstly, dealing with the cases where the students are pursuing
Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery, the Ordinances, relevant for
resolving the controversy read as follows:-
“4. Duration of Course
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
For the students admitted in 2001 and onwards
(Amended by the Board of Management in its meeting
held on 5.12.2001 vide Para 11(U) (c)1. First Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
2. Second Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
3. Third Prof BAMS 1 ½ years
4. Internship 1 year
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -11-5. Degree to be awarded
Ayurvedacharya BAMS ( Bachelor of Ayurvedic
Medicine and Surgery)
The candidate shall be awarded Ayurvedacharya BAMS
( Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree
after completion of prescribed courses of study extending
over the prescribed period and passing the Final
Examination and satisfactory completion of one year
rotatory compulsory internship in the parent institution
after passing in all the subjects in the final examination.
6 to 8 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
9. First Professional Examination ( to be held at the
end of 1 year and 6 months).
(i) (a) The 1st Professional period shall be 18 months duration and the examination shall ordinarily be completed by the end of next year November/December. The Supplementaryexamination of 1st Professional shall be held within six
months of declaration of result.
(b) A candidate who fails in one or more subjects of
First Professional Examination may be allowed to keep
term in Second Professional course. Only those
students who pass in all subjects of 1st Prof. BAMS
examination shall be allowed to take Second
Professional Examination.
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -12-
The students shall be allowed clear all the subjects of
First Professional BAMS examination in four
consecutive attempts including the first attempt in
which they were eligible to appear, failing which they
shall have to appear in all the subjects of the First
Professional BAMS examinations. ( Amended by
BOM on 28.5.2004, vide para 77 and on 11.11.2004,
vide para 4 (c )).
(ii) The First Professional BAMS Examination shall
be in the following subjects and candidate shall be
required to pass all the subject:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (iii) & (iv) xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. Second Professional Examinationsi) The Second Professional course shall start in
January/February following the First Professional
Examination and the Examination shall be held in
May/June of the year in which a candidate completes
18 months of study. Candidates passing first
Professional in supplementary examination shall not
be allowed summer vacation so that they undergo
instruction during this period. (Amended by BOM on
24.5.2004, vide para 77).
ii) The Second Professional Examination shall be
held one and half years after First Professional
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -13-Examination and in the following subjects. Each
Theory Paper will be three hours duration.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
iii) A candidate who fail in one or more subjects of
Second Professional Examination may be allowed to
keep term in Third Professional Course. Any such
candidate will be allowed to appear in the Third
Professional Examination only after passing all the
subjects of Second Professional Examination.
(Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004, vide para 77).
iv) The supplementary examination to Second professional shall be held ordinarily inNovember/December and those who remain failed in
any subject shall be eligible to appear in the
subsequent Second Professional Examination.
These candidates shall be allowed to clear all the
subjects of Second Professional BAMS examination
in four consecutive attempts including the first attempt
in which they were eligible to appear in the
examination, failing which they shall have to appear in
all the subjects of the Second Professional
Examination. (Amended by BOM on 28.5.2004, vide
para 77 and on 11.11.2004, vide para 4 (c)).
11. Final Professional Examination
(i) A. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
B. For students admitted in 2001 and onwards
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -14-The Final Professional Examination shall be held one
and half year after the Second Professional Examination
and shall comprise the following subjects:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (ii) If a candidate secures re-appear /failed in one ormore subjects in Final Professional Examination he/she
shall be eligible to appear in those subjects in
subsequent Final Professional Examination which may
be held every six months.
The students shall be allowed to (sic.) clear all the
subjects of Final Professional BAMS examination in
four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in
which they were eligible to appear, failing which they
shall have to appear in all the subjects of the Final
Professional BAMS examinations. (Amended by BOM
on 28.5.2004 , vide para 77 and on 11.11.2004, vide
para 4 (c)).
(iii) He/she shall not be allowed to commence Internship
training without passing all the subjects of Final
Professional BAMS examination.
12.Compulsory Internship 12.1 xxxx xxxx xxxx12.2 The students who had joined the BAMS Course
in 2001 or thereafter shall go in for compulsory
Internship after passing Final Prof. BAMS Course.
Duration of Internship shall be of one year as under:-
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -15-xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
12.3 After completion of internship the concerned
Principal will certify that the student has satisfactorily
completed internship. Thereafter the student will be
awarded the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic
Medicine and Surgery(BAMS).”
A perusal of the above Ordinances dealing with the Bachelor
of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery leaves no manner of doubt that it is a
complete code in itself governing each and every aspect of the
course/training which has to be imparted to the students. The requirement,
therefore, as mandated in these Ordinances has to be given full effect to. It
has been time and again held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the
matters of academic standards, the Courts should refrain from interfering
with and interpreting the Rules and Regulations holding the field as such
matters need to be left to the care of the Experts in those fields. Here
reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the cases of University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC
491, State of Kerala vs. Kumari T.P.Roshana, (1979) 1 SCC 572 and
Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 1 SCC
211. The rationale underlying the above pronouncements is that Courts do
not have the expertise and the resources required to go into the questions of
devising the curriculum for the professional courses like the one in question
before us. A great deal of technical expertise and knowledge is required for
meting out the complications and requirements of the Professional Courses.
It is for this reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -16-Courts not to interfere or interpret the matters relating to academic
standards which would include Professional Courses as well. The
requirement of each Professional Course is specific which only the experts
can delve into, choose and decide the best as per the needs, so that the
Society receives the most talented and professionally trained persons when
they pass out of their colleges to serve the people at large.
On consideration of Ordinances 9, 10 and 11, as reproduced
above, it emerges that the same deal with not only the duration of the
Professional Courses but also the Examinations which are required to be
cleared by the students. In an ideal situation a candidate should clear all
subjects of the Professional Examination in which he is studying and
appearing in the very first attempt. And yet, there may be reasons beyond
the control of a candidate which would not permit him to take the
examination in one or more subjects. It is only to help those candidates, that
apart from the first attempt in which a candidate is eligible to appear, three
consecutive attempts in addition have been provided under the Ordinances.
Out of these three consecutive attempts, two attempts are available to the
candidates before the next Higher Professional Examination is to be held
and the petitioners herein have availed of the same but have failed to clear
all the subjects. No doubt, a 3rd additional chance is available to them as
per the Ordinance, which they can undoubtedly avail of, but that would be
at the cost of missing a chance to appear in the Higher Professional
Examination. A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in a
Professional Examination may be allowed to keep term in the next Higher
Professional Course but the Ordinance provides that any such candidate will
be allowed to appear in the Higher Professional Examination only after
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -17-passing all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination; which the
petitioners have failed to do.
The Ordinances would further show that eligibility for
admission to the Higher Professional Course is entirely different from the
eligibility to appear in an examination. A candidate may be eligible for
admission to the Higher Professional Course but merely on admission to
the Higher Professional Course he will not be/become eligible to appear in
the Higher Professional Examination as well, unless he fulfills the
requirement of eligibility to take the said examination. Therefore, the
eligibility for admission to the Higher Professional Course and eligibility to
take the Higher Professional Examination are two different things, the
requirement of which is dependent on the relevant Ordinances and Clauses.
If the requirement under the Ordinances/Clauses is not fulfilled for one
reason or the other, the candidate cannot claim that since one of the
requirements stands fulfilled, the other requirement would automatically
stand complied with.
The Ordinances, when analysed carefully make the intention
behind the same evident. Ordinance 9 deals with the First Professional
Examination. Clause (i)(a) states that First Professional shall be of 18
months’ duration. Clause (i)(b) thereof provides that a candidate who fails
in one or more subjects of the First Professional Examination may be
allowed to keep term in the Second Professional Examination. However,
according to this clause, only those students who pass in all the subjects of
the First Professional Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery
Examination shall be allowed to take the Second Professional Examination.
Clause (ii) of this very Ordinance provides the subjects of which the
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -18-candidate is required to take examination in the First Professional in
Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. It further states that the
candidate shall be required to pass all the subjects. Ordinance 10 deals with
the Second Professional Examination. Clause (i) provides that Second
Professional Examination shall be held on completion of 18 months study.
Clause (ii) thereof gives the details of the subjects in which the candidate is
required to take examinations. Clause (iii) provides that a candidate who
fails in one or more subjects of the Second Professional Examination may
be allowed to keep term in the Third Professional Course. However, it also
mandates that any such candidate will only be allowed to appear in the
Third Professional Examination after passing all subjects of the Second
Professional Examination. Ordinance 11 deals with the Final Professional
Examination. Clause (i) (B) provides that the Final Professional
Examination shall be held one and a half year after the Second Professional
Examination and shall comprise of the subjects enumerated therein. Clause
(ii) thereof provides that if a candidate secures reappear/fail in one or more
subjects in Final Professional Examination, he/she shall be eligible to
appear in those subjects in subsequent Final Professional Examinations
which may be held after every six months. Clause (iii), however, stipulates
that such candidate shall not be allowed to commence Internship training
without passing all the subjects of the Final Professional BAMS
Examination. Ordinance 12 provides for Compulsory Internship. Clause
12.2 provides that the candidate shall go in for Compulsory Internship after
passing Final Professional BAMS Course which shall be of a duration of
one year. Ordinance 9(i)(b), 10 (iv) and 11(ii) are similarly worded and
provide for four consecutive attempts including the first attempt in which
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -19-the candidate is eligible to appear, in order to allow a candidate to clear all
subjects of the respective Professional Examination, covered by the said
Ordinances. They further provide that where a candidate fails to clear all
the subjects in the attempts granted under these clauses of the Ordinances,
he/she shall have to appear in all subjects of that Professional BAMS
Examination, meaning thereby that a candidate is required to clear all
subjects of the Lower Professional Examination before he/she can be
allowed to appear in the Higher Professional Examination. This is the
Scheme of the Ordinances.
Each professional is of a duration of 18 months. A candidate
who fails to clear all subjects in the first attempt in which he/she is eligible
to appear in a Professional Examination, gets two other consecutive
attempts to clear the subjects he/she has failed in of that very Professional
Examination before the next Higher Professional Examination in normal
course is held. The mandate as provided under Ordinance 9 (i) (b) and 10
(iii) which requires the candidate to pass all subjects of the First
Professional Examination and the Second Professional Examination before
he/she can be allowed to appear in the Second Professional Examination
and Third Professional Examination respectively, has a cardinal purpose to
serve.
It has been claimed by the petitioners that under the
Ordinances, they have been provided four consecutive attempts including
the first attempt in which they were eligible to appear but they have been
able to exhaust only three attempts, leaving one more attempt available to
them to clear the said Professional Examination. As per the condition
imposed for the candidate to be eligible to appear in the next Higher
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -20-Professional Examination, this attempt of the candidate stands extinguished
and the candidate would be losing six months, in the process leading to
his/her lagging behind his/her batch-mates, although he/she still had one
more attempt to clear all the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination
as per the Ordinance itself. As is apparent from above, these are grace
attempts provided for the candidate to clear the subjects where the candidate
has failed in the examination. If a candidate is allowed to take his fourth
consecutive attempt to clear the Lower Professional Examination along with
the Higher Professional Examination, as has been claimed by the
petitioners, an anomalous situation may arise where a candidate may clear
the Higher Professional Examination but may fail to clear the Lower
Professional Examination. This would create an absurd situation where
despite each professional being an independent and separate entity in itself,
leading to a progressive promotion from First Professional to the Second
Professional and thereafter Second Professional to the Third Professional, a
candidate without passing the Lower Professional Examination clears the
Higher Professional Examination, which is neither the intention of the
Ordinances nor is it as per the Scheme formulated for the Course. Further,
the Scheme of the Course as spelt out in the Ordinances is clear and
unambiguous which provides for spreading of the Course into three
Professionals, each being of equal duration of 1 ½ years as is apparent from
Ordinance 4. Distribution of the course is such that not only the theory
and practical marks including the internal assessment has been provided in
the Ordinances but duration for which each subject, number of lectures to be
taught and practical demonstrations to be held have also been provided
under the Ordinances. None of the Professionals are co-related with each
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -21-other and each one is independent of the other. It is with this intention and
purpose that each professional has been compartmentalized separately. They
have separate subjects which are to be taught, that include theory and
practicals leading to a gradual promotion of a candidate from one
professional to the next professional for which passing of all the subjects of
the Lower Professional is mandated to be eligible for appearance in the
next Higher Professional Examination. Compulsory Internship, which has
been provided under Ordinance 12 is also independent in itself as Ordinance
11 (iii) clearly depicts, as it provides, that a candidate shall not be allowed
to commence Internship training without passing of the subjects of the
Final Professional BAMS Examination and similarly, Ordinance 12.2
stipulates that a candidate shall go in for Compulsory Internship after
passing Final BAMS Professional Examination which shall be of one year
duration. The Scheme of the Course, therefore, requires a candidate to pass
the Lower Professional Examination first, for being eligible to appear in the
next Higher Professional Examination. The fourth consecutive attempt,
thus, is a concession which has been granted under the Ordinance as a
grace attempt to a candidate so that he may have to appear only in those
subjects which he had fail to pass in that Professional Examination, failing
which the candidate shall have to appear in all the subjects of the Lower
Professional Examination. In this process, it may so happen that the
candidate may lose six months as he will have to sit back to clear the
subjects which he had failed to pass in the Lower Professional Examination.
For this, the candidate alone has to be blamed and none else as that is the
result of his/her own making which can be attributed to the candidates
negligence, non-seriousness, lack of responsibility and dedication or such
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -22-like reasons. The Ordinances have not been formulated to help, support and
encourage such candidates. The mandate of the Ordinances cannot be
violated to avoid such a situation as the Ordinances cannot be so construed
that the pure and simple language of the Ordinances as well as the purpose
for which they have been enacted, stand destroyed with impunity.
In the light of the above, a candidate who although may be
eligible for admission to a Higher Professional Course but would not be
eligible to appear in the examination of that Higher Professional Course
unless he passes all subjects of the Lower Professional Examination as
mandated under the Ordinance. The four consecutive attempts which have
been provided under the Ordinances to the students are grace chances to
cover up the contingencies which may occur and are beyond the control of
the candidate, giving him/her ample opportunity and chance to catch up
with the other batch-mates but that would in itself not make him/her
eligible for taking the Higher Professional Examination without passing all
the subjects of the Lower Professional Examination.
Reference, at this stage, may be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of
Medicine, Punjab and others vs. Suchintan and others, AIR 1994
Supreme Court, 1761, in support of the view we have taken wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 25, 26, 33, 35 and 39 has held as follows:-
“25. Here again, eligibility for admission to Second D.H.M.S.
Examination is based on two conditions:
(i) A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination at the
end of one year previously. This means one year must elapse
between the passing of the first Year examination and taking of
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -23-Second Year examination.
(ii) Subsequent to the passing the first Year,
(a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical
and practical;
(b) for a period of at least one year;
(c ) to the satisfaction of the head of the college.
26. Thus, unless and until, these two conditions are satisfied, a
student is ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S.
Examination.
27. to 32 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
33. Supposing he passes in that subject or subjects in the
supplementary examination he is declared to have passed at the
examination as a whole. This should obviously be so; because
once he completes all the subjects, he has to necessarily be
declared to have passed. Merely on this language, “declared to
have passed at the examination as a whole”, we are unable to
understand as to how the “doctrine of relation back” could ever
be invoked. The invocation of such a doctrine leads to strange
results. When a candidate completes the subjects only in the
supplementary examination, then alone, he passes the
examination. It is that pass which is declared . If the “doctrine
of relation back” is applied, it would have the effect of deeming
to have passed in the annual examination, held at the end of 12
months, which on the face of it is untrue.
34. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
35. Whatever it is, a candidate has to complete all the subjects
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -24-within four chances. Should he fail to do so, he will have to
undergo the course in all subjects for one year unless of course,
he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (viii).
Nowhere do we find in Regulation 11 ‘a system of carry
forward’. On the contrary, it is detention every year. The High
Court was moved by the fact that if a candidate were to pass in
supplementary examination after passing the examination, he
will have to remain at home till the next annual examination.
So, he is allowed to undergo a course for next academic year
provisionally. On this line of reasoning, clauses (iv) and (vi) of
Regulation 11 are sought to be “harmoniously construed”. We
are unable to accept this line of reasoning or the so-called
harmonious construction because it does violence to the
language of the Regulation. It clearly violates the mandatory
requirements of Regulation 9. It has already been noted as to
what those requirements are. To repeat:
(i) The lapse of one year period between the passing of First
D.H.M.S. examination.
(ii) Subsequent to the passing of the First D.H.M.S.
examination to undergo the course of study for one year.
Therefore, if a candidate passes in the supplementary
examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced.
Worse still is a case of a student who passes only at the next
annual examination. Can he be allowed to take the Second
D.H.M.S. examination without even completing the First?
Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -25-complete the First, since he is still one more chance to take this
examination, what is to happen? The situation is absurd. The
same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse
is one and half years.
36 to 38 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
39. If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the
supplementary examination that is his own making. To avoid
such a situation, the Regulations cannot be construed causing
violence to the language.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the
Regulations which are plain and susceptible only to literal interpretation
should be construed as it is without introducing an element of ambiguity
and absurdity.
In the light of what has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and as has been reproduced above, the contention of the counsel for
the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Ordinances have to be given a plain
and literal interpretation as the same are unambiguous and clear and admit
one meaning only. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is
accepted, that would amount to re-writing the Ordinances and their clauses,
which is neither called for in the present case nor is it permissible, as they
deal with and hold their own separate fields, there being no conflict or
contradiction between them.
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhoor Singh Hayer
and others vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others,
2009 (1) RSJ 243, while dealing with the Regulations relating to M.B.B.S.
Course, held that the general scheme of the Regulations which are intended
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -26-to maintain academic standards and promote completion of Course by
ensuing through satisfactory and proper attention to details as stipulated in
the said Regulations cannot be watered down. While dealing with
regulation 7.7, it was held that the said Regulation does not regulate
eligibility to appear in the Second Professional Examination. Even when a
candidate has passed the supplementary examination and joins the main
batch of students, he may still remain ineligible to appear in the examination
if he does not satisfy other conditions for appearance in the examination as
mandated by the Regulations. Where the scheme of the Regulations
requires studies to be undertaken by the students in a systematic and
methodical manner, giving proper attention to each subject taught in each
semester including all aspects of training programme other than lecture
studies cannot be overlooked. It was further held that the eligibility to be
promoted to a higher professional semester, would not make the candidate
eligible to appear in the examination if the conditions mandated for such
qualification are not satisfied by the candidates.
We have now reached a stage, in our endeavour to find a
proper considered response to the question we had posed in our quest to
interpret the Ordinances involved and to resolve the dispute between the
conflicting views taken by the Benches of this Court which had led to the
present reference to a Larger Bench, where we can conclude by an
answer.
The basic judgment which requires consideration and which
has been relied upon by the petitioners is in the case of Aseempreet
Kundi’s case (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge was dealing with
Ordinance 5 relating to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy Course, which reads
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -27-as under:-
“5. First Professional B.P.T. Examination:
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c )xxx xxx xxx xxx(d) The First Professional B.P.T. examination shall be in
the following subjects and candidate shall be required to
pass all the subjects:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(v) A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in
his/her Ist attempt, shall be permitted to attend classes in
2nd Prof. B.P.T. course. However, if a candidate who
fails to pass all the subjects in the subsequent
examination shall be reverted to Ist Prof. B.P.T. course
forfeiting all the benefits of earlier promotion.
(vi) A candidate who passes in one or more subjects shall
be exempted from appearing in these subject at a
subsequent examination, but the candidate must pass the
examination in a maximum of six attempts, failing which
he/she shall have to appear in all the subjects of the
examination.
(vii) However, those candidate who clear all the subjects
of Ist Professional B.P.T. course in 6th attempt shall be
promoted to 2nd Prof. B.P.T. course after the declaration
of the result, and thereafter they shall have to complete
the period of one academic year of study in order to
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -28-become eligible to appear in 2nd Prof. B.P.T.
examination.
6. Second Professional B.P.T. Examination:
The Second Professional B.P.T. Examination shall be
open to a person who-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) has previously passed the First Prof. B.P.T.
examination of this University or an examination of any
other recognized University/Institution in India
considered equivalent for the purpose by the University.
xxxx xxxx xxxx”
While adopting the principle of reading down and applying the
doctrine of harmonious construction, while interpreting clauses (v), (vi),
(vii) of Ordinance 5 (d) and 6 (b) it was held as follows:-
“A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her
first attempt, shall be permitted to attend classes in 2nd
Prof. BPT course.
A candidate who passes in one or more subjects shall be
exempted from appearing in these subjects at a
subsequent examination but the candidate must pass the
examination in a maximum of six attempts, failing which
he/she shall have to appear in all the subjects of the
examination.
Those candidates who had not cleared all the subjects of
Ist Prof. BPT course and who had completed the
academic year of studies of 2nd Prof. BPT course shall be
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -29-eligible to appear in 2nd BPT examination and, if such
candidates clear all the subjects of Ist Prof. BPT course
in six attempts shall be deemed to have been regularly
promoted to 2nd Prof. BPT course. However, if a
candidate fails to pass all the subjects of Ist Prof. in
six attempts, then he/she shall be reverted to Ist Prof.
BPT course, forfeiting all the benefits of earlier
promotion.”
In Bikramjit Singh’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court following the judgment in the case of Aseempreet Kundi’s case
(supra) has allowed the writ petition in the same terms. Similar was the
position in the case of Himanshu’s case (supra) wherein the counsel for the
University had proceeded to concede before the Court that the claim of the
petitioners was covered by the judgments in Aseempreet Kundi’s and
Bikramjit Singh’s cases (supra). This leads us to the next judgment of
this Court in the case of Parampreet Kaur and others (supra), wherein a
Division Bench of this Court had granted the relief to the petitioners who
were pursuing 3rd year Professional B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. As per the
interim order passed by this Court, the University was directed to accept the
application forms of the petitioners therein for the 3rd Year B.Sc. (Nursing)
Examination. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Court was
informed that the application forms of the petitioners to appear in the annual
examination for the 3rd Year had been accepted by the University and in
view of the admitted position, that all the petitioners continued to attend
the classes for the 3rd Year throughout and had also cleared their 2nd Year
Annual Examination by appearing in the supplementary examination and
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -30-they fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in the Regulation of the
Ordinance, the University was, directed to regularize the admission forms
submitted by the petitioners to appear in the annual examination of the 3rd
Year Bachelor of Science (Nursing) Course.
The above position leads us to a situation where none of the
judgments rendered by the above-mentioned Division Benches of this Court
was on consideration of the merits on the case or of the Ordinances
applicable to the examinations for which the petitioners were craving
indulgence to appear in. In all the Division Bench decisions referred to
above, the orders were passed on the basis of the concession given by the
counsel appearing for the respondents. The only judgment which
considered and interpreted the Ordinances was a judgment of this Court in
the case of Aseempreet Kundi’s case (supra). The said judgment was
rendered by the learned Single Judge interpreting the Ordinances as they
stood at that time. It has been brought to the notice of this Court during the
course of hearing of the case by the learned counsel for the respondent-
University that the said Ordinances and clauses stand amended. So much
so, clause (vii) of Ordinance 5(d) which was the real offending clause
which led to the passing of that judgment at that stage stands deleted. The
present prevailing Ordinances relating to Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT)
has been supplied to us. In view of the amendment and deletion of the
offending clauses of the Ordinances, the ratio as laid down in this case
cannot be made applicable now when considered in the light of the
Ordinances prevailing at present. In any case, the Ordinances under
consideration before the learned Single Judge in Aseempreet Kundi’s
case (supra) are not pari materia with the Ordinances which are being
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -31-considered in the present cases and further, those Ordinances which were
under consideration in the said case related to Bachelor of Physiotherapy
(BPT) whereas the present cases relate to the Ordinances which are dealing
with the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery and Bachelor of
Science in Nursing ( 4 Years’ ) Degree Programme, which have no
semblance or connection with each other. No similarity has, thus, been
found between the two, which would have any bearing on the present cases.
Yet another aspect which renders the veracity of these judgments as regards
they being good in law is that in none of these cases the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suchintan’s case (supra) been considered, this
for the reason that the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the
Court. Had it been otherwise, the decisions would have been different.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment rendered in
Aseempreet Kundi’s case, (supra) does not hold the field. The Division
Bench judgments as rendered in Bikramjit Singh’s, Himanshu’s and
Parampreet Kaur’s cases (supra), since were based on concessions of the
counsel for the respondents without going into the merits of the case or the
Ordinances dealing with the Course in question, do not lay down any law
which has any binding effect.
Now coming to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Tarun Mohan’s case, (supra) where this Court while dealing with
Ordinance 10 (iii) relating to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery
had held that a candidate could not claim a right to appear in the 3rd
professional examination without passing all subjects of the 2nd
professional examination as required under Ordinance 10 (iii). The view
taken by this Division Bench is the same to the conclusion which we have
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -32-reached above. We, therefore, approve the same by holding that it lays
down the correct law.
Conflicting views taken by the Benches having been resolved
as above, the answer to the question has to be in the negative, as we have,
on analysis of the Ordinances, come to a conclusion that the eligibility to
join the next Higher Professional is separate and distinct from being eligible
to appear in that Higher Professional Examination as they are two different
conditions and stages of the Course, independent of each other with no co-
relation amongst them, each providing for its own separate eligibility
conditions, which a candidate is required to fulfill to avail access to such
condition/stage. Thus, a candidate who has failed in one or more subjects in
the Earlier Professional Examination and who has been permitted to attend
classes in the Higher Professional Course as per the Ordinance, although
having completed the period of study for the said Higher Professional
Course, cannot be allowed to take the examination of the Higher
Professional Course without passing in all subjects of the Lower
Professional Examination irrespective of the fact that the attempts provided
for clearing the Lower Professional Examination are still available and have
not been exhausted by the candidate.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in Civil Writ
Petitions No.15852 of 2008, 15857 of 2008, 16047 of 2008, 16052 of 2008,
16056 of 2008, 16124 of 2008, 16205 of 2008, 16558 of 2008, 16559 of
2008, 16809 of 2008, 5762 of 2009, 6513 of 2009 and 6703 of 2009
preferred by the students of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery
and dismiss the same.
In the light of the above position in law, we proceed to examine
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -33-the Ordinances dealing with Bachelor of Science in Nursing (4 years’)
Degree Programme (Annual System) as applicable in C.W.P.Nos.14156 of
2008 Charanjeet Kaur vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences
and 16159 of 2008 Nisha Kalyan vs. Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences
The relevant Ordinances read as follows:-
” 1. Duration:
The duration of the course for the degree of Bachelor
of Science in Nursing shall be of four years including
compulsory internship. This course starts in July
every year.
2 and 3 xxxx xxxx xxxx 4. Examination:- 4.1 The annual examination for each year shall ordinarily be held in the month of May/June onsuch dates as may be fixed by the University. For
failed / reappear candidates, a supplementary
examination shall be held in the month of
November/December or on such other dates as may be
fixed by the university. To appear in the annual
examination candidate must have the following:
i) has been on the college roll for one
academic year preceding the examination.
ii) of good character
iii) of having attended not less than 75 per cent
of lectures and practicals held in each of the
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -34-subjects and 90 percent of clinical practicals in
Nursing subjects in which she wishes to be
examined; and
iv) Should be medically fit.
v) of having secured at least 35% marks of the
total marks fixed for internal assessment in
each subject, separately, in order to be eligible
to appear in all University examinations. The
re-appear/fail students will not be reassessed
every time for the purpose of Internal
Assessment and their previous score of
assessment will be carried forward. (Amended
by Board of Management on 11.11.2004, vide
para 18 and on 31.11.2006, vide para 35).
Internal Assessment should be submitted to the
University at least two weeks before the
commencement of theory examinations.
vi) has his/her name submitted to the
University by the Principal of the College.
4.2 to 7 xxxx xxxx xxxx
8. Minimum Pass Marks and Promotion:-
8.1 The minimum number of marks required to pass
the examination shall be:-
a) 35 per cent in the subjects of English and
computer which will include internal assessment.
b) 50 per cent in theory in each subject other than
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -35-English and Computer, which will include internal
assessment.
c) The candidate is required to pass each theory and
practical exams separately to be declared successful
in that subjects.
8.2 A candidate who passes in one or more subjects
shall be exempted from appearing in these subjects
at the subsequent examinations, but he/she must
pass the concerned examination in a maximum of
four attempts commencing with the first exam of
his/her own class failing which he/she shall have to
appear in all subjects of the examination.
8.3 A candidate who fails in one or more subjects in
his/her first attempt in B.Sc. (Nursing) 1st/2nd year
examination shall be permitted to attend classes of
next higher class. However , he/she must pass the
lower examination at least one term (6 months)
before he/she is allowed to appear in the next higher
examination.
Provided that a candidate shall be allowed to join
Internship/4th year class only after passing all the
subjects of 3rd Year B.Sc. (Nursing) class.
(Amended by BOM on 31.1.2006,vide para 39).
9. xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. Internship
10.1 Every candidate shall undergo the
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -36-
compulsory rotatory Internship in the parent
institution/hospital as laid down by the Faculty of
Nursing Science for a period of 40 weeks, after
passing the third year examination and before being
granted the degree. The 4th year class and internship
shall run concurrently.
10.2 On successful completion of Internship as
certified by Principal under whom the training was
done, a candidate shall be eligible for award of
B.Sc. (Nursing) degree.
10.3 xxxx xxxx xxxx”
A perusal of the above would show that as per Ordinance 8.3, a
candidate who fails in one or more subjects in his/her first attempt in B.Sc.
(Nursing) first/second year examination shall be permitted to attend the
classes of the next higher class but would be eligible to appear in the next
higher examination only when he/she passes the Lower Examination at least
one term (six months) before he/she has to appear in the next higher
examination. A proviso to this Ordinance further clarifies that a candidate
shall only be allowed to join the internship/4th year class after passing all
subjects of 3rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class. The requirement, therefore, is
clear that the candidate has to pass the Lower Examination at least six
months before he/she is permitted to appear in the Higher Professional
Examination and to join Internship/4th year classes passing of all subjects of
3rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class is a must. As has been held above, the
eligibility for admission to the higher class is different from eligibility to
take the examination of the higher class. To be eligible to be permitted to
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -37-
attend the next higher class, does not necessarily entitle a candidate to be
eligible to appear in the next higher examination. The requirement is
different and, therefore, a candidate must be eligible to take the next higher
examination by fulfilling all the conditions mandated under the Ordinance,
failing which, he/she cannot claim it as a matter of right merely because all
the chances and attempts which were available to the candidate had yet not
been exhausted. It may not be out of way to mention here that the
additional attempts which have been granted to the candidates are merely
grace chances as the same cover the exceptional situations where a
candidate is unable to take the examinations or is unable to clear the same.
In C.W.P.No.14156 of 2008 Charanjeet Kaur vs. Baba Farid
University of Health Sciences, it is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been denied admission to 3rd year of the
Course on the ground that she has not cleared 1st year examination and had
also not taken the examination of the 2nd year as mandated under Ordinance
8.8 of the Ordinances. The requirement having not been fulfilled by her
for being eligible to take the 2nd year examination as she has not cleared the
1st year examination, she had no right nor was she eligible to take the 2nd
year examination and, therefore, the question of her being allowed to join 3rd
year B.Sc. (Nursing) class would not arise at all. After failing to clear one
or more subjects in his/her first attempt in B.Sc. (Nursing) 1st year
examination, a candidate may be granted permission to attend classes of the
2nd year class, however, to take the 2nd year examination, the candidate must
pass the Lower Examination at least one term (six months) before he/she
can be allowed to appear in the next Higher examination. Having failed to
do so, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is not
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -38-
sustainable and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
As regards C.W.P.No.16159 of 2008 Nisha Kalyan vs. Baba
Farid University of Health Sciences and others, it is the contention of the
petitioner that she was not being allowed to take the 4th year B.Sc.(Nursing)
examination to be held in the year November/December 2008 on the ground
that she had cleared her 3rd year examination held in May/June 2008 and
had not completed one academic year on the college rolls preceding the
date of examination.
Ordinance 4.1 lays down as to when the Annual and
Supplementary Examinations shall be held, it also provides for the
eligibility for a candidate to appear in the Annual Examination. Clause (i)
thereof provides that the candidate must have been on the college roll for
one academic year preceding the Examination. A perusal of the proviso to
Ordinance 8.3 would clearly show that a candidate shall be allowed to join
internship/4th year class only after passing of 3rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class
meaning thereby that the general rule for permitting a candidate to attend
classes of next higher class even if a candidate fails in one or more subjects
in his/her first attempt would not apply. Further, this permission is only
applicable to 1st and 2nd year examinations only. Ordinance 10 clearly
spells out Internship and 10.1 thereof states that every candidate shall
undergo Compulsory Rotation Internship in the parent institution/hospital as
laid down by the Faculty of Nursing Science for a period of 40 weeks, after
passing the Third Year Examination and before being granted the degree.
The 4th year class and Internship shall run concurrently.
From a conjoint reading of Ordinance 4.1 (i), 8.3 and 10.1 it is
C.W.P.No.15852 of 2008 -39-
clearly spelt out that a candidate will only be allowed to join Internship/4th
year class after passing all subjects of 3rd year B.Sc. (Nursing) class. The
petitioner has not fulfilled this condition. Ordinance 4.1 (i) comes into play
only after the petitioner had passed all subjects of 3rd year B.Sc. (Nursing)
class. She having not completed one academic year on the college rolls and,
thus, having not fulfilled the eligibility condition as provided under the
Ordinance for being eligible to to take the examination, no fault can be
found with the action of the University in not allowing the petitioners to
take the 4th year examination.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same also
deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
(T.S.Thakur) (Jasbir Singh) (Augustine George Masih) Chief Justice Judge Judge July 10, 2009 poonam