AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has sought the following relief:
7.1 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon''ble Court may be pleased to declare the Notification dated 26.12.2012 as ultra virus (Annexure P-7)
7.2 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon''ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents for awarding of 2 marks of Grace in the Practical examination of MBBS Professional examination Part first held in November 2011 in the paper of Anatomy.
7.3 To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon''ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents for issuing of revised mark sheet after granting benefit of Grace Marks of two number.
7.4 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon''ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for mental harassment.
7.5 Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper may also be given in the interest of justice.
Case of the petitioner is that she got admission in the academic session 2010-11, however, she could not get required marks in practical, there was deficiency of two marks in the practical of Anatomy subject. The contention of the petitioner is that vide Annexure-P/2 dt. 26.12.12, the respondent No. 1 has issued a notification by which provision of award of grace marks, upto 5 marks, has been provided from the academic session 2011-12. It is submitted that the aforesaid notification has been made applicable arbitrarily from academic session 2011-12 while the benefit of the said notification ought to have been extended to the petitioner also. It is submitted that on this ground, the petition may be entertained.
From perusal of Annexure-P/7, we find that the provision of grace marks in one subject upto 5 marks has been made by the respondents for MBBS degree course, but, this provision has been made applicable from academic session 2011-12 and not prior to it. In absence of any provision giving effect to the said notification with some retrospective date, no writ can be issued against the respondents to give effect to such a provision with retrospective date. It is for the respondents who are expert in the field to decide the said question and not by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merits in this petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the respondent No. 1 for redressal of the grievance by filing a representation in this regard which can be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. No order as to costs.