LexMAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES versus PARYANI MUKESH JAWAHARLAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEAL TH SCIENCES A v. PARYANI MUKESH JA WAHARLAL & ORS. JUNE I, 2007 [R.V. RA YEEND RAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] B Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Ordinance 112002-C/auses 56(2) and 57: Regulation 12 of MCI prescribing that of total marks in each subject, C weightage for internal assessment by Medical College was 20% of which student had to secure at least 35% for eligibility to final university examination-Regulation 12(4) prescribing that for passing out in each subject, candidate had to obtain 50% to aggregate with a minimum of 50% in Theory including orals and 50% in Practicals-University Ordinance D prescribing heads of passing of various courses in medical faculty as (i) Theory-Ora/ (ii) Practical (iii) Internal Assessment (Theory + Practical): standard of passing being not /es than 50% of marks in each of passing heads of respective subjects-Vices of University Ordinance-Held-University Ordinance was in consonance with classes (2) and (4) of MCI Regulation 12-Marks in internal assessment by Medical College could not be clubbed E with University examination (external) marks to ascertain whether a candidate has passed in Theory with orals, and Practicals. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 framed by Medical Council of India (MCI):- - ,, Regulations foamed by MCI-Nature of-MCI is an expert body to F control minimum standard of medical education and to regulate their observance-Regulations framed by it have statutory forces and are mandatory-Universities must necessarily be guided by them-Any regulations made by Universities inconsistent with them or diluting the crieteria as laid G down therein will be invalid to the extent of inconsistency or dilution. Precedent-Decision of co-ordinate Bench of High Court-Held that it is a binding precedent for another co-ordinate Bench-If the latter wants to take a different view judicial propriety requires it to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 891 H 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R. A The appellant is a University having different Medical College affiliated to it. It framed Amended University Ordinance 112002. Clause 56.2 thereof prescribed heads of passing of various courses in their respective medical faculty as (i) Theory +Oral; (ii) Practical; (iii) Internal Assessment (Theory + Practical). Clause 57 thereof prescribed the standard of passing as obtaining of not less than 50% of marks in each of the passing heads ofthe respective B subject Medical Council of India (MCI), constituted under Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 has framed Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Regulation 12(2) thereof in clauses (ii) and (iv) prescribed respectively C that (a) weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% ofthl! total marks to each subject and (b) student must secure at least 35% marks of the total marks fixed for internal assessment in a particular subject in order to be eligible to appear in final university examination of that subject. Regulation 12(4) thereof inter alia prescribed that in each of the subjects, a candidate must obtain 50% in aggregate with a minimum of50%. In Theory intending D ask and minimum of such in Practicals. In response to a doubt about the manner of giving effect to Regulation 12(4) ibid, MCI, in a letter addressed to a Medical College in Kerala clarified that out of the total of200 marks, 40 marks have been provided for internal assessment (theory-20 marks and practical-20) and student has to obtain a E minimum of50% (i.e. 20 marks) thereof; as regards obtaining 50% in theory including orals and minimum of 50% in practical, a student had to obtain a minimum of70 marks in theory out of a total of 140 marks (100+20+20=140) and a minimum of 30 marks out of a total of 60 marks in practical (40+20). F Respondents are students pursuing MBBS course in different Medical Colleges affiliated to appellant. They appeared for the III MBBS Part II examination. The marks secured by them, when assessed as per the interpretation of the appellant of Regulation 12( 4) showed them as failing in the subject, and very same marks when assessed as per their own interpretation and that of MCI, showed them having passed the subject. G Aggrieved by the results showing them as having failed in one or more subjects, they filed writ petitions before High Court contending that the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.