Utpal Das vs Union Of India & 2 Ors

1) The brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner is pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery from North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda & Homeopathy (NEIAH) an autonomous Institute affiliated to North Eastern Hills University. When the writ petition was on filed on 7th March, 2019, the petitioners' grievance was that he had not been allowed by the respondent No. 3, to attend the academic classes in the 2nd professional course even though the writ petitioner had appeared in the terminal exam of the 2nd professional course, on the ground that the petitioner had not passed all the subjects in the 1st professional course.

2) During the pendency of the writ petition, it is seen that the writ petitioner then passed all the subjects in the 1st professional courses, which entitled him to appear for the 3rd professional examination as per clause 6 (c) of the Regulation called the Indian Medicine Central Councils (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulation, 2016 but he was not permitted to do so. According to the learned counsel the petitioner, this fact was brought by way of Misc. Case No. 133 of 2019 and the same was taken on board for consideration by this court.

3) Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulations 6 (i) (c) and 6 (ii) (c) provide that a student who has passed all the subjects of the 1st professional examination shall be allowed to appear in the 3rd professional examination, but the student shall not be allowed to appear in the final professional examination unless the student passes all the subjects of 2nd professional examination. He also submits that admittedly the petitioner has not taken admission for the 2nd professional examination in the month of January, 2018 when the course began but has taken admission in the month of April, 2019 after clearing all subjects of the First professional course. He submits that the petitioner however, has attained requisite attendance, with maybe only a minimum shortfall as he has been attending the classes of the 2nd Professional Course. The learned counsel submits that though there should be no legal hurdle for the petitioner to attend the classes for the Third professional examination of the course, he submits that in view of the stipulation contained in Regulation 10 (5) which mandates 75% attendance, the authorities have not permitted the petitioner to attend the 3rd professional course. In this view of the matter, he prays that a mandamus be issued to allow the petitioner to attend the said course.

4) Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that in fact, when the writ petition was instituted, the writ petitioner had not passed all the subjects in the 1st professional courses. He submits that the petitioner passed his first professional Examination during March, April 2019 after being allowed to sit for the examinations being eligible as per Rules (fulfillment of 75% attendance). He submits that petitioner was then allowed to attend 2nd year Professional course though he had not taken admission and in fact the petitioner took admission only on April 2019. He further submits that here to, the petitioner could not attain the required attendance for the 2nd Professional Course and now is required to attend sufficient classes in the 2nd Professional course to qualify himself to appear in the examination. He lastly submits that the petitioner must fulfill the conditions laid down by Clause 5 of the Regulation, and also that it is not practically possible for one student to attend both the classes of 2nd and 3rd Professional courses simultaneously.

5) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the University after taking into consideration the core structure as contained in Indian Medicine Central Councils (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulation, 2016 has made regulations under Ordinance OC 17. He also draws the attention of the this Court to the provision contained in the chapter governing Examination at Clause (iv) which mandates minimum percentage of attendance a student has to achieve in order to make one eligible to appear in any subject in any professional examination and that the Regulation as prescribed is mandatory and to be complied with.

6) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the case and also given due weightage to the fact that the instant dispute concerns the future career of a student, whose livelihood depends upon the successful completion of such professional courses. In the instant case, the writ petitioner due to certain circumstances could not progress in the professional courses as desired, and faced certain problems both with regard to clearing the requisite subjects and also the shortfall in the required attendance.

7) Coming to the aspect of percentage of attendance, there is no unanimity on the percentage of classes that the petitioner has attended as both the parties dispute the same. It seems the whole matter hinges upon this question to determine the eligibility of the petitioner to attend classes for the 3rd Professional course. As this question revolves around disputed facts, though the respondent counsel has submitted that there is no possibility of the petitioner attaining 75% attendance, there are no materials to enable this Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to percentage the petitioner has achieved. In my opinion it will be only the concerned authorities competent to consider the same, after factoring the condonation or relaxation permissible as per relevant rules, to determine whether the petitioner can be allowed to attend the 3rd professional course.

8) In view of the facts and circumstances, I propose to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing the writ petitioner, due to the change in situation during the pendency of this writ petition, to present a representation for consideration of his case before the Director, North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy, Government of India, Mawdiangdiang, Shillong (respondent No. 3) within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. The said authorities shall consider the representation taking into consideration the facts and circumstances by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and thereafter to pass a speaking order thereof within a period of 15(fifteen) days.

9) With the following directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.