AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantanagoudar
Petitioners are the students studying in BAMS Course (Ayurvedic Medicines) in respondents 3 to 8-Institutions. They appeared for 1 Year BAMS examination on 21.12.2009. Six subjects are prescribed for 1 Year BAMS Course. None of the petitioners have passed four or more than four subjects in 1 Year BAMS examination out of the six prescribed subjects, i.e., they have failed in more than two subjects. The II Year BAMS examination was scheduled to be held on 21.6.2011. The University did no-: permit the petitioners to take up II Year examination on the ground that the petitioners have not completed four subjects, out of six subjects in 1 Year examination. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing these writ petitions.
This Court while issuing notice to the respondents, granted interim order which reads thus:-
Learned ASG is directed to take notice for R1.
Sri S.G. Pandit, learned counsel is directed to take notice for R2. Issue notice to R3 to R8.
R2, R4 to R8 are directed to permit the petitioners to appear for the Second Year BAMS Degree Course examination scheduled to he held in June, 2011 subject to the result of these writ petitions, and subject to payment of prescribed fee within a period of three days from today in their respective colleges. The colleges in trun shall remit the examination fee to the second respondent-University forthwith. The result of the examinations taken by the petitioners shall not be declared without the leave of this Court.
Based on the said interim order, the petitioners have appeared for II Year BAMS examination. However, their results are not announced. This Court by the very interim order, has clarified that the permission granted to the petitioners to appear for II Year examination, was subject to the result of these writ petitions.
The relevant portion of the rule relating to qualification for appearing to II Year BAMS examination, reads thus:-
Provided a student failed in more than 2 subjects shall not be eligible to keep the terms
Copy of the amended Rule is produced by the respondent-University as per Annexure-R2 along with the statement of objections.
From the aforementioned Rule, it is clear that a student who has failed in more than two subjects, cannot be allowed to go to the next term/year. Since the petitioners have failed in more than two subjects, the University has rightly did not allow the petitioners to write the II Year examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim order is granted by this Court on 7.6.2011 and consequently, the petitioners have already appeared for II Year BAMS examination and therefore leniency may be shown to the petitioners by condoning their lapses. He further submits that the amended rule relating to eligibility to appear for II Year BAMS Course was not brought to the notice of the students at the time of their initial entry to the Course. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing these writ petitions.
The aforementioned contentions of the petitioners cannot be accepted. There cannot be any dispute that the interim order granted by this Court specifically states that the said interim order is subject to the result of the writ petitions and the results of the examination shall not be announced except with the permission of the Court. The petitioners who have appeared for II Year Examination pursuant to the interim order, cannot claim equity based on the interim order. Since the interim order is subject to the result of these writ petitions, the petitioners cannot claim that they should be permitted to continue their Course.
The BAMS Regulations of Rajiv Gandhi University are amended w.e.f. 21.1.2006. The Government of India Gazette dated 21.1.2006 has notified the amendment of regulations called "Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum standard of Education) in Indian Medicine (Amendment) Regulation, 2005. These regulations are effective from 21.1.2006. The respondent University has issued Notification pursuant to the same on 19.9.2006. All these facts are found in the document at Annexure-R2 filed along with the statement of objections. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they did not know about the amended regulations. Amendment took place as far back as in the year 2006, whereas the students are admitted in the year 2008. If the petitioners are not aware of the same, nobody can help them. Everybody, including the petitioners are bound by the regulations/rules prescribed by the University.
In view the same, the prayer as sought for in these writ petitions, cannot be granted to the petitioners. Hence, petitions fail and accordingly, the same stand dismissed.