Court declares medical varsity's exam guidelines unconstitutional

The Madras High Court has declared as unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, the guidelines of Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University for clinical/viva voce examination for final year MBBS (Non-Semester) Part II.

The guidelines concerned the subject General Surgery. The university insisted that a student should obtain a minimum of 50 per cent marks individually in the sub-branches, viz Practical for General Surgery and Orthopaedic.

Allowing a batch of writ petitions, Justice P. Jyothimani said that the university, in the guise of introducing better standards of education, had issued the guidelines, which were arbitrary.

The prospects of students competing with similarly situated candidates from other universities either outside the State or deemed universities within the State for undergoing internship could not be curtailed.

The petitioner P. Anand and others prayed the court to declare the impugned guidelines as contrary to Regulation 12 (4) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University was following the MCI regulations till 2008-09.

Thereafter, it introduced the impugned guidelines in respect of the final year Part II General Surgery of MBBS course by dividing the practical/clinical into two separate branches.

The petitioners' counsel, S. Thanka Sivan, contended that the impugned guidelines in the guise of attempting to introduce better qualification than prescribed by the MCI had, in effect, resulted in gross arbitrariness and discrimination. It was unreasonable.

The university submitted that the guidelines were introduced to improve the standards of medical education.

Mr. Justice Jyothimani said there was certainly repugnancy between the impugned guidelines of the university and the MCI regulations as per the powers under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act.

In academic matters, courts should be slow in interfering for various reasons, most importantly that the court was not an expert in the subject. It was the university that had to decide and it could not be compelled to act against its statute.

But, on the facts of the present case, the MCI, which consisted of experts, had formulated the council guidelines.

There was nothing wrong in holding that such regulations should be scrupulously followed. Introducing better standards of education did not mean discriminating similarly situated persons.

The Judge made it clear that in respect of each of the petitioners, if based on MCI regulations they had obtained aggregate marks of 50 per cent, they should be declared passed and permitted to proceed for internship.