9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 509 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the candidate has acquired the necessary proficiency for knowledge, minimum skills along with clear concepts of the fundamentals which are necessary for him to carry out his professional day to day work competently? Whether a student has passed in a subject by securing the minimum of 50% in Theory including Orals , the assessment should be with reference to Theory - both external and internal as also Orals , and similarly, for Practicals, the assessment should be with reference to Practicals -- both external and internal? Whether clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1/2002 are in consonance with clauses (2) and (4) of MCI Regulation 12? Whether internal assessment marks cannot be clubbed with University examination (external) marks to ascertain whether a candidate has passed in Theory with orals, and Practicals?
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Regulation 12(2) & (4) of "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997" framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI Regulations). 2. Validity of clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002. 3. Whether internal assessment marks should be clubbed with external examination marks to determine passing in Theory (including Orals) and Practicals. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Regulation 12(2) & (4) of MCI Regulations: The appeal concerns the interpretation of Regulation 12(2) & (4) of the "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997" framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The students contended that the criteria for passing adopted by the University were contrary to the MCI Regulations. They argued that their marks should have been assessed by clubbing internal assessment marks with external examination marks for Theory (including Orals) and Practicals, which would result in them passing the subjects. 2. Validity of Clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002: The High Court had declared clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002 as illegal and void, being inconsistent with MCI Regulation 12. The University argued that these clauses merely implemented MCI Regulation 12(4) and were not inconsistent with it. The University contended that the internal assessment marks should only be considered for eligibility to appear in the examination and for aggregate marks but should not be clubbed with external examination marks for passing Theory (including Orals) and Practicals. 3. Clubbing Internal Assessment Marks with External Examination Marks: The High Court accepted the students' interpretation, supported by an MCI clarification letter dated 17.9.2002, which suggested that internal assessment marks should be clubbed with external examination marks. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation inconsistent with the plain language of Regulation 12(4). The Court noted that the Regulation clearly separates internal assessment marks from external examination marks for the purpose of passing in Theory (including Orals) and Practicals. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the interpretation put forth by the University was correct and that clauses 56(2) and 57 of the Amended University Ordinance 1/2002 were in consonance with MCI Regulation 12. Internal assessment marks cannot be clubbed with external examination marks to ascertain whether a candidate has passed in Theory (including Orals) and Practicals. The Court also stated that the MCI's clarification in its letter dated 17.9.2002 and its reply affidavit were contrary to MCI Regulation 12(4). Final Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 of the Bombay High Court, and declared that the decision would be prospective in operation and effect for the III MBBS (Part II) Examinations held in November-December 2006. The interim order dated 25.8.2006, which directed evaluation based on the High Court's norms for the III MBBS Part II examination held in December 2005, was extended to the November-December 2006 examination. All applications for intervention/impleading were rejected, and parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
|
