AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 12.11.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent - University (Annexure-D) and a direction to the 2nd respondent -University to approve the admission of the petitioner to the I year MBBS course for the academic year 2003-04.
According to the petitioner who is a native of Madhya Pradesh, he has passed Higher-Secondary Certificate Pariksha (10+2) conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Open School, Bhopal in July 2003 with English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the said course is conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Open School, Bhopal and that the examination conducted by the said Open School grants eligibility for admission to MBBS course as the said examination is equivalent to 10+2 examination. According to the petitioner, he was admitted to the said course in Government Higher Secondary School at Kushmi District, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh and completed his course in July 2003. He relies upon a circular issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government which states that the High School and Higher Secondary School exams of the. Madhya Pradesh State Open School from 1997 are recognized equivalent to High School and Higher Secondary exams conducted by M.P. Secondary Education Board. On the strength of the said equivalence, the petitioner got himself admitted to M.B.B.S. Course provisionally in the 3rd respondent - college in the academic year 2003-04. It appears that the college sought for eligibility certificate of the students and the University, by letter dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure-D), declined to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner, which has been impugned in this writ petition. Thereafter, the college had issued a circular dated 16.2.2004 prohibiting the petitioner from attending the classes. Consequently, the petitioner''s father requested the 2nd respondent - University to permit the petitioner to attend the classes pending consideration of the issue by the Government as per Annexure-E, According to the petitioner, the University did not consider the eligibility of the petitioner and therefore, he has filed this writ petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while adverting to the documents referred to above, has submitted that the letter dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure-D), insofar as the petitioner is concerned, stating that he is not found eligible as he has passed 10+2 class from Madyamik Rajya Open School, Bhopal, which is not recognized by the University, is untenable and is without application of mind and therefore, wholly illegal. It is further contended that the University has failed to consider that the Medical Council of India which is the Apex Body which regulates the standard of Medical Education in the country has recognised the examination in question as equivalent to 10+2 examination and it has approved the admission of students with the said qualification to the I year MBBS course in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and therefore, the 2nd respondent - University has acted in a discriminating manner by not accepting the equivalence of the course completed by the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the petitioner would face hardship and difficulty and hence, Annexure-D insofar as it relates to the petitioner has to be quashed.
Per contra, the learned, Counsel for the 2nd respondent -University has submitted in its counter that the examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Open School, Bhopal is not considered as equivalent to PUC of Karnataka which qualifies a candidate to get himself admitted to I year MBBS course and that the question of equivalence is determined by an expert body of the University and merely because the course has been recognized in other States, the same is not binding on this University. In this context, 2nd respondent relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, . It is further submitted that the examination taken by the petitioner is not one of the listed examination recognized by the 2nd respondent - University and that the refusal to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner is justified and does not call for interference by this Court and therefore, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
Respondent No. 1 - Medical Council of India has also filed its counter affidavit to the writ petition stating that it is a settled position in law that the Courts would not substitute its opinion over the opinion of the expert authorities created under the statutes framed by the Parliament or the legislature and has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Priya Ganguly and Others Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, , A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, and C.B.S.E. and Another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Others, to contend that this Court ought not to direct the 2nd respondent - University to approve the admission of the petitioner to the I year MBBS course for the academic year 2003-04.
At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the issue of equivalence of degrees or certificates secured by the candidates from Secondary Education Course or Universities within India or overseas is a matter to be left to expertise of the Universities and All India bodies which lay down and maintain academic standards in education and it is not for the Court to engage itself in such, a matter. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, , where in the context of eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree course, students seeking admissions had to pass two year Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that students passing Higher Secondary Examination held by Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, would be clearly ineligible for admission to the degree course when that examination was not recognised as equivalent by the Karnataka University to the Pre-University Examination held by the Pre-University Board, Bangalore. According to the Apex Court, it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence of an examination of any other Board with the examination which primarily constitutes the basis of eligibility and further it would not be just and proper for the Courts to sit in judgment over the decision of the University, because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University or its Council is best fitted to decide whether any examination held within the State is equivalent to any other examination having regard to the courses, syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not interfere with the decision taken by the University.
Following the above decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 5795/2003(S-RES), in the case of Dr. T.R. Gururaja Rao v. The Dental Council of India and Anr. considered the question as to whether the qualification of Master of Science (Dentistry) was equivalent to the degree of Master of Science in Experimental Oral Pathology. In this case, the appellant was working as a professor and Head of the Department of Oral Pathology & Microbiology in Oxford Dental College & Hospital, Bangalore and had been removed from service on the ground that he was not eligible to hold the post for which the minimum qualification prescribed was Master of Science (Dentistry). Therefore, the appellant had sought a declaration from the Dental Council of India that two qualifications were equivalent. The Dental Council of India, however held that two courses could not be equated and the said action of the Dental Council of India in not treating the two qualifications as equivalent was challenged before this court in a writ petition, which was dismissed and on an appeal against the said order, the Division Bench held whether the two qualifications are the same or equivalent are matters at best be decided by expert bodies like the Dental Council of India, as this court does not possess the requisite expertise to determine the questions of equivalence. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed.
It is also relevant to cite another decision of this Court in W.P. No. 20037/2005 disposed of on 30.5.2008 wherein the rejection of the equivalence of M.Sc. in Nursing obtained by the petitioner therein from the University of Hawai, U.S.A., by the Nursing Council of India was not interfered with by this Court.
Similarly, in W.P. No. 600/2006 which has been dismissed today, the decision of the Medical Council of India, which had not recognized the residency training obtained by the petitioner therein in Preventive Medicine in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, USA which is a three years'' course, has been upheld.
The decisions above cited pertain to Dental Council of India, Medical Council of India, Karnatak Universities Act and Indian Nursing Council and the same squarely apply to the facts of this case wherein the 2nd respondent - University has, by letter dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure-D), stated that the petitioner is not found eligible as the 10+2 course she has completed is not recognized by the University and the writ petition was dismissed.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the ratio of the decisions cited above, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.