9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N PANTA, LOKESHWAR SINGH,JJ. JUDGMENT: The common judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 887 of 2006 and connected cases is under challenge in this appeal by special leave. The appeal relate to the interpretation of Regulation 12 (2) (4) of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 framed by Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI Regulations'). The description of appellant is permitted to be corrected by showing the Deputy Registrar as representing the Appellant University, instead of the Deputy Registrar of the Appellant University being shown as the appellant. 2. The appellant-University (referred as 'the University') was established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. The private respondents ('students' for short) are prosecuting MBBS course in different Medical Colleges affiliated to the University. They appeared for the III MBBS Part II examination conducted by the University in December, 2005. The subjects were General Medicine, General Surgery, Obstetrics Gynaecology and Paediatrics. The results were published on 18.2.2006. The students were shown as hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l examinations. The performance in essential components of training are to be assessed, based on: (1) Attendance : 75% of attendance in a subject for appearing in the examination is compulsory inclusive of attendance in non-lecture teaching i.e. seminars, group discussions, tutorials, demonstrations, practicals, Hospital (Tertiary, Secondary, Primary) postings and bed side clinics, etc. (2) Internal Assessment : (i) it shall be based on day-to-day assessment (see note), evaluation of student assignment, preparation for seminar, clinical case presentation etc; (ii) regular periodical examinations shall be conducted throughout the course. The question of number of examinations is left to the institution; (iii) day-to-day records should be given importance during internal assessment; (iv) weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% of the total marks in each subject; (v) 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. Note : Internal assessment shall relate to different ways in which students participati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of MCI Regulation 12 sets out the distribution of marks to various disciplines and the Heads of Passing in each subject, in respect of the examinations relating to First Professional, Second Professional, Third Professional Part-I, and Third Professional Part-II. We have extracted only a portion of clause (4) relating to the distribution of marks in regard to one subject -- Anatomy (which is a first MBBS subject) by way of illustration. 5. When a doubt was raised about the manner of giving effect to MCI Regulation 12(4), MCI by its letter dated 17.9.2002, addressed to a Medical College in Kerala, gave the following clarification: It may be observed from the above that out of the total of 200 marks for the subject of Anatomy, 40 marks i.e. 20% of the total marks have been provided for internal assessment (theory - 20 marks and practical - 20). As regards the candidate obtaining 50% in Theory including orals and minimum of 50% in practical prescribed under distribution of marks of various disciplines , it may be pointed out that so far as Anatomy is concerned, a student has to obtain a minimum of 70 marks in theory out of a total of 140 marks (100+20+20=140) and a minimum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the University, in respect of a subject where the maximum marks are 200 (break-up being Theory 100, Oral 20, Practicals 40, Internal Assessment 40 made up of 20 for Theory and 20 for Practicals), a student to pass in the subject, should after becoming eligible by securing 35% in internal assessment, appear in the University examination and secure a minimum of 60 marks out of 120 marks in Theory plus Oral, and minimum of 20 marks out of 40 marks in the Practicals. He should also secure 100 marks out of 200 marks being the aggregate of University examination (externals) and internal assessment. It is contended that only the marks secured in the University examination (Externals) should be considered for ascertaining whether a candidate has secured the required minimum marks in Theory (plus Orals) and Practicals; and that the internal assessment marks for Theory and Practicals cannot be clubbed with the marks secured in the external examination relating to Theory (plus Orals) and Practicals to find out whether a student has passed under the head of Theory (plus Orals) and the head of Practicals. It is submitted that the internal assessment marks are relevant only for providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is 40:20) in regard to Practicals, which is not intended. It is submitted that any process or method which dilutes the external assessment result by addition of internal assessment marks, is to be avoided. It is further submitted that Regulation 12(4) contemplates and requires a candidate should pass under distinct heads firstly by securing 35% in internal assessment, then by securing minimum of 50% in the external examinations, that is Theory (plus Orals) and Practicals, and lastly by securing 50% of the aggregate (of externals and internals). This means that internal assessment marks are to be clubbed with the examination marks only under the head of aggregate; and for finding out whether the student has passed in Theory (plus Orals) and Practicals, only the University examination (external) marks are to be considered. It is contended that a candidate who fails in the external examination (either Theory or Practicals) by not securing the minimum of 50%, cannot be permitted to pass the subject by borrowing from the internal assessment marks when there is a likely chance of internal assessment marks being liberally granted by the college faculty. The high marks that is normally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, contended that for ascertaining 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. 12. Learned counsel for MCI supported the interpretation put forth by the students. He contended that in Medical education, internal assessment is an important feature. Therefore MCI Regulations made final assessment of performance of a student, a blend of external assessment and internal assessment, by providing a weightage for internal assessment at 20% of the total marks in each subject. Consequently such weightage should be incorporated under all three heads of passing, namely (i) aggregate, (ii) Theory including orals, and (iii) Practicals. If internal assessment is to be excluded and only the performance in the University examination is to be considered for passing in Theory or in Practicals, it would amount to denying the weightage for internal assessment provided in MCI Regulation 12(2)(iv). It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35% by amendment to MCI Regualtion 12(2)(v) vide Notification dated 15.10.2003. The second is that MCI had given a clarification regarding the manner of giving effect to Regulation 12(4) on 17.9.2002 which permitted clubbing of internal assessment marks with the external examination marks, for the passing head of 'Theory with Orals' and 'Practicals', and the said clarification by MCI had been accepted by the Kerala High Court in K. Fahad Mohamed vs. Calicut University [WA No. 1777 of 2002 decided on 25.9.2002] and other cases. We find that neither of the two reasons given by the High Court in the judgment under appeal for not following its earlier decision in Sheetal A.Abhyankar is valid. The amendment to Regulation 12(2)(v), reducing the eligibility marks in internal assessment from 50% to 35%, was specifically noticed in para 16 of the earlier judgment. Similarly the clarification by MCI supporting the interpretation put forth by the students was also noticed, though the letter dated 17.9.2002 as such was not referred. Both the two contentions were considered and rejected. Merely because the Kerala High Court had accepted the clarification of the MCI, the Bombay H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing in the subject. The calculations are given below : University interpretation (candidate fails in the subject) : 1. Aggregate (I+II+III+IV) : 107 marks out of 200 marks 2. Theory plus oral (I + II) : 59 marks (out of 120) (47 and 12 out of 100 and 20 marks) 3. Practicals (III) : 17 (out of 40) As the candidate secured less than 50% in Theory including Orals (that is 59 out of 120) and less than 50% in practicals (that is 17 out of 40), he failed under the heads of Theory (plus Orals) and Practicals. As a consequence, though he secured more than 50% in the aggregate, he failed in the subject. Interpretation of MCI/students (candidate passes in the subject) : 1. Aggregate [I+II+III+IV] : 107 marks out of 200 marks 2. Theory plus Oral [I+II+IV(a)] : 75 marks out of 140 (47, 12 and16 out of 100, 20 and 20) 3. Practicals [III+IV(b)] : 32 Marks out of 60 (17 and15 out of 40 and 20) As the candidate secured more than the minimum of 50% under all the Heads of Passing, that is, in the aggregate, in Theory (plus orals), and Practicals, he passed in the subject. 17. MCI Regulation 12 is divided into four parts namely (i) attendance, (ii) internal assessment, (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding orals, should be obtained by a student. It does not say 50% in theory including orals and internal assessment (theory). It should be remembered that the marks are distributed as 100 for theory (external), 20 for oral (external), 40 for practical (external) plus 20 for theory (internal) and 20 for Practicals (internal). If the intention was to club the marks for internal assessment with the marks secured in external examination, the marks would have been distributed in the following manner : - a) Theory : (i). Two papers of 50 marks each 100 marks (ii). Internal Assessment 20 marks b) Oral (Viva) 20 marks c) Practical/Clincial (i). External Assessment 40 marks (ii). Internal Assessment 20 marks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mum of 50% of marks in practicals, it means he should secure 20 out of 40 marks in practicals. 21. We may examine the issue from another angle. MCI Regulation 12(2)(iv) provides that a weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% of the total marks in each subject. Thus, the weightage for internal assessment would arise when the total marks (or aggregate) in each subject are considered and not otherwise. That is, where the total marks are 200, internal assessment marks would be 40 marks. Therefore, Regulation 12(4) rightly provides that the total of 200 marks consist of 160 marks for externals (university examination) and 40 marks for internals (college assessment) maintaining the ratio of 80:20, thereby implementing the requirement of MCI Regulation 12(2)(iv). But if internal assessment marks are also to be clubbed with theory (external) marks or Practical (external) marks, it leads to absurd and incongruous results. For example, for practicals, if internal assessment marks are clubbed with examination marks, then the minimum of 50% would be 30 out of 60 (that is 40 plus 20). This results in the weightage for internal assessment becoming 33.33% (20 out of 60) thereby v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the entire internal assessment marks are to be added to the practical marks of externals. The share or proportion of internal assessment in practicals becomes 33.33% as per the stand in the letter dated 17.9.2002 and 50% as per the stand in the reply affidavit, as against 20% provided in Regulation 12(2)(iv). Neither interpretation, as pointed out above, is in consonance with the specific and clear wording of Regulation 12(4). The very fact that MCI has been interpreting Regulation 12(4) differently at different points of time, is a ground to reject such interpretations which are contrary to the plain meaning of Regulation 12(4). Conclusion : 23. We, therefore, accept the interpretation put forth by the University in respect of MCI Regulation 12 as correct and hold that clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1/2002 are in consonance with clauses (2) and (4) of MCI Regulation 12. We also hold that internal assessment marks cannot be clubbed with University examination (external) marks to ascertain whether a candidate has passed in Theory with orals, and Practicals. We further hold that the clarification given by MCI in its letter dated 17.9.2002 and the clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
