‘Did not fulfil statutory criteria’; Delhi High Court dismisses plea for continuing MD course after the expiry of prescribed “span period”

The petitioner having consciously chosen Indian Revenue Services over M.D. course defying all statutory norms, cannot be permitted to complete the course beyond the span period. Rather, the petitioner’s iniquitous quest for greener pastures has, in the bargain, led to one MD course seat being wasted.

delhi high court

Delhi High Court: The questions involved herein were (a) whether the petitioner, who after completing more than two years of the three years M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) course, left the same to join Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) could be allowed to complete his MD course after the expiry of “span period” prescribed for completing the same, and (b) whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of “centenary chance” offered by the University of Delhi (‘University’) to all its students who could not complete their degree. A Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J.*, opined that the petitioner could not claim any right to complete the MD course beyond the prescribed span period, in the absence of any provision to relax the same. Further, the Court held that the University was justified in not permitting the petitioner to avail the centenary chance examination, as he did not fulfil the statutory criteria prescribed under the Post-Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000 (‘Regulations’).

Background

In the present case, the petitioner after successful completion of his MBBS course, appeared in All India Medical Examination for Post Graduate Medical Course (M.D./M.S./Diploma), which was then conducted under the aegis of AIIMS, New Delhi. The petitioner was admitted to the three-year M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) course at the University College of Medical Sciences, GTB Hospital, New Delhi and joined the three-year course of M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) programme. While pursuing the M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) course, the petitioner cleared the Civil Services (Main) Examination and based on his rank, he was allowed a place in the Indian Revenue Services (Income Tax). Since post selection, joining the training for a period of 16 months was a mandatory requirement at the Indian Revenue Service, the petitioner left the M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) course midway and went for training. The petitioner later joined the mandatory training of Indian Revenue Service at the National Academy of Direct Taxes, Nagpur.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court noted that Ordinance 26 of the Postgraduate (Degree/Diploma) Post-Doctoral Courses Ordinance, 2011 of the university provided for “span period” regarding the M.D. Course and it clearly stipulated that students admitted to M.D./M.S./MDS courses must pass the degree examination within five years after registration to the course. Also, in terms of Clause 16.1 of the Bulletin of Information, the petitioner was obliged to pass the degree examination of his M.D. course within five years after registration.

The Court opined that the duration to complete the course/programme could not be open-ended. There was always an outer limit for completing the same which was referred to as the ‘span period’. The Court relied on Amit Kumar v. Delhi University (‘Amit Kumar Case’), 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6577, wherein it was held that the students could not said to have any right to complete the course/programme to which they have sought admission, in whatever time they might deem proper. The Court thus opined that it was clear that the span period could not be relaxed by the Courts unless there was a provision providing for the same and no such provision had been pleaded or pointed out by the petitioner. The Court observed that this Court in Amit Kumar Case (supra) held that relaxation/exemption was inbuilt in the span period, because the span period was generally double the duration otherwise prescribed for the course. Thus, the Court opined that the petitioner could not claim any right to complete the MD course beyond the prescribed span period, in the absence of any provision to relax the same.

The Court noted that during the pendency of the present petition, the University relaxed the condition of ‘span period’ by issuing notifications in 2022, whereby it granted its ex-students a chance in the centenary year of the university to complete their degree who could not do so within the span period. The Court further noted that with an intent to avail the benefit of centenary chance, the petitioner had amended the writ petition and claimed relief in terms of these notifications. The Court observed that in terms of notifications in 2022, such a chance could be availed only by those ex-students who could not complete their degree within the span period but had completed their course work and statutory requirement prescribed for completion of the course and had essential repeat/failed as per the final year marksheet. Further, availing of the centenary chance was subject to permissibility of the Regulatory Body governing the professional course.

The Court noted that under Regulation 10(1) of the Regulations, the period of training for obtaining the degree in M.D. (Radiodiagnosis) was three completed years including the period of examination. Regulation 13.2 further provided that all candidates were required, (i) to work as ‘Full Time Residents’ during the three years training period; and (ii) they must attend not less than 80 per cent of the imparted training during each academic year including assignments, assessed full time responsibilities and participation in all facets of the educational process. The Court further noted that the petitioner did not complete his training/course work of three years nor worked as ‘Full Time Resident’ during the three years training period, as mandated by Regulation 13.2 of the Regulations as the petitioner had left the course midway after completing training of little more than two years.

The Court further noted that the availing of the centenary chance was subject to permissibility of the Regulatory Body governing the professional course, which in the case of petitioner’s course was the National Medical Commission. The committee constituted by the Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences regarding “Centenary Chance for Special Examination” after adhering to all the provisions of the Regulations, recommended that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the Centenary Special Chance Examination. The Court opined that the Regulation was binding and mandatory and was not advisory in nature and the universities had to be guided by the standards prescribed by the National Medical Commission (‘NMC’) and the universities do not have option to follow or not to follow the standards laid down by the NMC. Thus, the Court held that the University was justified in not permitting the petitioner to avail centenary chance examination, as he did not fulfil the statutory criteria prescribed under the Regulations.

The Court further relied on MCI v. State of Karnataka (‘MCI Case’), (1998) 6 SCC 131, the Supreme Court emphasized that half-baked medical professionals were not conducive to the health care system of the country and to underline the need for grueling study and training which medical professionals should undergo. This Court opined that the said observation by the Supreme Court in MCI Case was relevant in the present case where the petitioner was seeking to take Centenary Chance Examination without having completed training or worked as Full Time Resident.

Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.

[Ranjan Agarwala v. University of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3762, decided on 23-6-2023]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vikas Mahajan


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Aditya Nayyar, Tarang Agarwal, Advocates;

For the Respondents: Mohinder JS Rupal, Vinay Malik, T. Singhdev, Abhijit Chakravarty, Michelle B. Das, Ramanpreet Kaur, Bhanu Gulati, Advocates.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *