R.R.K. Trivedi, J.@mdashSpecial Appeal No. 97 of 1998 filed under Ch. VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred from the order dated 25th March, 1998 by which learned Single Judge held Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 556 of 1998 not maintainable in Lucknow Bench of this Court. While hearing special appeal on merits, learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition from which the aforesaid appeal has arisen may also be heard and decided on merits. Thus we have heard Counsel for parties on appeal as well as on the writ petition and both are being decided by the common order.
2. The facts, in short, giving rise to dispute are that petitioner No. 1 and other students joined MBBS course in Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut (in short referred to as ''L.L.R.M. Medical College''). It is stated in the writ petition that on account of the delay in conducting C.P.M.T. Examination, the studies of MBBS course of 1992 batch could commence in April, 1993. After completing four and half years studies consisting of nine semesters, final examination was held in month of October, 1997 and the result were declared. The successful students were accorded temporary registration by the U.P. State Medical Council and at present all of them are doing required compulsory one year rotatory internship. They expect that they will complete their internship by 31st March, 1999 and then shall be eligible to appear at the All India Entrance Examination and U.P. State Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination for diploma and degree courses for which rotatory internship is required to be completed by 1st May, 1999.
3. The grievance of this batch of 1992 medical students is that the academic year for the students of 1993 M.B.B.S. Course of L.L.R.M. Medical College though could commence from 28th December, 1992 but their final professional examination is going to be held from 9th March, 1998, though they have not completed four and half years M.B.B.S. course as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. The case of petitioners is that if the final professional examination of M.B.B.S student of 1993 batch is held according to the scheme, their results will be declared and they shall become entitled to complete one year of compulsory rotatory internship immediately after declaration of the result and they may complete it by May, 1999 and the students of 1993 batch shall also become eligible to appear in All India Entrance Examination and U.P. State Post Graduate Entrance Examination for Diploma and degree courses of 1999. Thus the petitioner No. 1 and other students who belong to 1992 batch shall be put to disadvantage. The allegations have been made that final professional year examination of 1993 batch of M.B.B.S. students is being conducted before expiry of 4-1/2 years studies with mala fide object to give advantage to some students of this batch who are sons of high ups and resourceful persons. In the writ petition it has been alleged that on 22nd January, 1998, respondent No. 2 Director General, Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow addressed a letter to Principals of the Medical Colleges of the State in which he stated that the representations have been received from the guardians of the students of 1993 M.B.B.S. students that the examination is not being held in time as a result of which their wards will not be in a position to take up the Post Graduate Entrance Examination and they will suffer loss of one year. The respondent No. 2 thus required the principal of Medical College to submit parawise report on the representation of the guardians within a week and also to intimate the proposed scheme of holding final professional examination of M.B.B.S. students of 1993 batch. It has been submitted that the Principal of King George''s Medical College, Lucknow in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, held an urgent meeting of the Head of Department and members of the Under Graduate Committee on 19th May, 1997 and after considering the representations of the guardians of the students of 1992 and 1993 batches of M.B.B.S. course, decided that the final examination can be only after completion of prescribed session of four and half years and no relaxation can be allowed in the total period of 4-1/2 years to the batch of 1993. It was also resolved that the tentative months of final examination of 1993 batch would be May and June, 1998. Petitioners'' allegations is that unlike other Medical Colleges of the State of Uttar Pradesh L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut is going to hold the final examination in month of March, 1998 against the rules, regulations and directions of the Medical Council of India only to give advantage to some students of 1993 batch. It has been alleged that the action is mala fide, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has also been said that the action of respondent No. 4 is in contravention of the direction given by Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of
4. Resisting the claim of the petitioners, counter affidavit has been filed by Dr K.N. Kapoor, officer on special duty in the office of Director General, Medical Education, U.P., Lucknow. On behalf of respondent No. 4 L.L.R.M. Medical College, counter affidavit has been filed by Sri C.S. Ramesh Babu, Associate Professor in Anatomy, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut. The respondents have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on various grounds for example non-impleadment of M.B.B.S. students of 1993 batch who are likely to be effected directly in case the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner No. 2 is not a registered society and thus the writ petition cannot be filed. It has also been said that no cause of action has accrued within the Oudh area and the writ petition is not maintainable at Lucknow Bench. It has also been said that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the final examination of 1993 batch in which they have no interest. It has also been said that the petitioners have alternative remedy of approaching the Examination Committee appointed u/s 29 of U.P. State University Act which is responsible for conducting the examination. It has also been said that the petitioners have alternative remedy u/s 68 of the U.P. State University Act before the Chancellor. Besides the aforesaid legal challenges the factual aspects involved in the case have also been challenged!. It has been said that as per Regulations of the Medical Council of India the period of studies for first phase is of 15 months and not 18 months as alleged by the petitioners. They have filed a photostat copy of the extract of Medical Council of India''s recommendation on Graduates and Medical Education as Annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit in support of their contentions. It has also been said that the studies of 1993 batch started much earlier and the date 28-12-1993 is not correct and petitioner are put to strict proof of the same.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it has been said that studies of C.B.S.E. students for the session 1993 commenced from 19th October, 1993 for which notice was given on 7th October, 1993. A copy of the notice has been filed as Annexure-1. It has been also said that C.P.M.T. examination were delayed, hence the admissions were made in December, 1993 but the fact remains that the academic session started from 18th October, 1993 and after completion of 18 months the first professional examination was conducted by the Medical College under the direction of the University for all the students including those who had joined the courses a little late. The examination cannot be conducted in piecemeal. In paragraph No. 14, it has been stated that a meeting of the Head of Departments was convened under the chairmanship of the Principal of the college on 19th July, 1997 and in the meeting it was discussed that since the result of CPMT-93 was delayed and the students were admitted in December, 1993 and first professional examination was conducted on 22-3-1995 after completion of 15 months and further second professional examination was conducted after 18 months of studies in October, 1996 and final professional Part- 1 Examination was conducted in March, 1997, hence it would be proper to conduct final professional part-II examination in March, 1998. A true copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 19th July, 1997 has been filed as Annexure-2. It has also been stated that information was duly given to the Secretary, Medical Council of India regarding the decision taken in the meeting dated 19th July, 1997 by letter dated 7-2-98, to hold final professional examination in March, 1998. A copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure C.A-3. In turn the Medical Council of India by letter dated 17-2-98 addressed to the respondent No. 2 gave opinion regarding conducting the final professional examination. A copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure-1. It would be relevant at this place to reproduce the letter of Medical Council of India dated 17-2-1998 :-
"Reference your letter dated 11-2-98 though fax seeking the opinion of the MCI as to whether, after successfully holding the first professional examination in April, 1995 of the batch admitted in December, 1993, can be permitted to appear in final MBBS examination after completion of 3 years duration from the date of passing the first MBBS examination in April, 1995.
It is stated that the examination can be held after 3 years of successful training after completion of 3 years from the date of passing the first MBBS examination provided the 2nd professional examination has also been cleared by these candidates. However, this is a local administrative matter pertaining to the university and the authorities of the Directorate concerned and a final decision may be taken keeping in view the rules and regulations of the MCI prescribed in the matter."
Allegations of mala fide etc. have been denied and it has been stated that final examinations are being held strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India and there is no breach at all. It has also been said that the effort was to regularise the course.
6. We have heard Sri G.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri H.G.S. Parihar for respondent No. 5 and Sri Sandeep Dixit for respondent No. 6 and have thoroughly considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties which were in lines of their respective pleadings narrated above.
7. Before entering into the consideration of the claim of petitioners on merit, it would be proper to consider the question of jurisdiction as to whether the present writ petition is maintainable at Lucknow Bench of this Court. We have gone through the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 25th March, 1998. There is no doubt about the legal position that if the part of cause of action has arisen in Oudh area or in other words at Lucknow, the writ petition could be legally filed at Lucknow. There is also no dispute about the fact that the medical education in the state imparted in seven Medical Colleges run by the State is under the control and supervision of the Director General, Medical Education, respondent No. 2. In paragraph No. 16 of the writ petition, petitioners have alleged that the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter on 22nd January, 1998 requiring the Principals of the Medical Colleges to give parawise comments on the representation submitted by the guardians of 1993 batch students of MBBS and to intimate the proposed date for holding the final examination of the said batch. The contention of the petitioners is that it was on account of this letter that the respondent No. 4 acted in haste and fixed 9th march, 1996 for final professional examination of 1993 batch. A Copy of the letter dated 22nd January, 1998 was filed as Annexure-1 to the objection filed against the amendment application. Thus on averments made in paragraphs No. 15, 16, 17 and 18, it could not be said that no cause of action had arisen to petitioners at Lucknow. Sri Parihar submitted that the scheme was already declared before the letter dated 22nd January, 1998 was despatched by respondent No. 2 and thus on basis of this letter it could not be said that any cause of action has arisen at Lucknow. However, this submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent, in our opinion, is not very relevant in view of the reasoning in the impugned order itself that for determining the question of jurisdiction regarding place of filing the petition, only the averments made in the writ petition are to be looked into. Petitioners in the writ petition have stated that they could not obtain a copy of the scheme. In absence of the facts, which came on record subsequently on filing of the counter affidavit, it could not be said that the cause of action had not arisen at Lucknow specially in view of the letter dated 22nd January, 1998. In our opinion in the facts and circumstances narrated above, part of cause of action had arisen at Lucknow and the writ petition was rightly filed here. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge challenged in appeal cannot be sustained.
8. So far as the grievance of the petitioners against holding the final examination of MBBS 1993 batch from 9-3-1998 is concerned, strong reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case
"Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act contemplates regulations and a sub-section thereof authorises regulations to be made for the courses and the period of study and practical training to be undertaken for grant of recognised medical qualifications. Section 25 of the Act provides that provisional registration and internship for a period of one year is a basic qualification necessary for acquiring the full-fledged MBBS degree. We also find that a regular registration is necessary for a candidate to get admitted into the Post Graduate Course and regular registration would not be permitted until the internship is completed. The action of the State of Uttar Pradesh in fixing the cut-off date as the end of December, 1990, and allowing the candidates undergoing internship to take the selection examination as also get admitted into the Post Graduate Courses is, therefore, contrary to the scheme of the Act and the" regulations made thereunder. The prevalent arrangement in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be classified as another indisciplined action."
Then Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down a scheme to resolve the position which had arisen on account of the action of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Paragraph No. 15 reads as unders :-
"Keeping their respective merit in view, we have waived the requirement of completion of the internship as a condition precedent to admission into the Post Graduate Degree. We would like to make it clear that hereafter no one shall be admitted without complying with the requirement of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations referred to above and no State Government or authority running a Medical College would be permitted to avoid compliance of the law."
9. Now it is to be seen whether the respondent No. 4 was justified in holding final examination of 1993 batch of students of MBBS course in March, 1998. If the minutes of the meeting held on 19th July, 1997 and the letter of Medical Council of India Dated 17-2-98 addressed to the respondent No. 2 are read together there remains no doubt that the examination could legitimately be held in March, 1998. On 19th July, 1997 decision was taken to hold final examination in March, 1998. In the minutes Annexure C.A.-2 dates on which the first professional MBBS examination and second professional MBBS examination were held have been given. The three years period has been calculated from the date 22-3-95 when the first professional examination was completed, hence required period of 3 years stood completed and examinations could be legally held in March, 1998. There is also dispute about the dates of commencement of the course of MBBS examination. According to respondent No. 4, the course started on 18th October, 1993 after admission of C.B.S.E. students. C.P.M.T. students joined this course later on in December, 1993 but all the students who were admitted to 1993 course, appeared in first professional examination and second professional examination together and the final examination has been held after three years from the date of the result of the first professional examination. On the other hand, case of petitioners is that the studies of 1993 batch commenced on 28th December, 1993 but to corroborate it, they could not place any cogent material before us on which basis it may be said that the case set up by the respondent No. 4 is not correct.
10. For claiming relief, the petitioners are required to establish a legal right for their claim or infringement of such right. However, in the present case, we do not find any vested right in petitioners to say that only they are entitled to appear in Post Graduate Entrance Examinations of a particular year. It is accepted position that the students who had passed the MBBS examination before petitioners but could not be successful in obtaining admission in Post Graduate Course, may also appear in 1999 Entrance Examination conducted on All India basis and the State basis. Similarly, students who had joined MBBS course alongwith petitioners but remained unsuccessful in completing the MBBS course and Internship in time, they would have also appeared with MBBS students of 1993 batch. Against such students petitioners cannot have any objection. Thus the admission in Post Graduate course is on basis of possession of a specified qualification prescribed under the rules without any reference to the year of attaining such qualification. It is open selection for all provided they possess the qualification. Hon''ble Supreme Court with reference to Section 33 and Section 25 of Indian Medical Council Act has held that for admission to Post Graduate Course full-fleged MBBS degree which includes internship for a period of one year is necessary. For admission into the Post Graduate course regular registration is also necessary which cannot be permitted until the internship was completed. Thus the admission to the Post Graduate course is on basis of the aforesaid qualification and not with reference to year of acquiring qualification. During the course of hearing, we were informed that the final professional examination has already been completed on basis of the impugned scheme which commenced from 9-3-1998 and the results have also been declared. In the circumstances, in our opinion, petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.
11. For the reason stated above, Special Appeal No. 97 of 1998 is allowed. The writ petition is found maintainable in Lucknow Bench of this Court. However, the writ petition is found devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
12. Immediately after the judgment was delivered, Sri G.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the appellant, made an oral prayer for grant of a certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution of India to file a SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
13. On consideration of the matter we are of the view that the case does not involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer is accordingly rejected.
