Akansha Upadhyay
Published on: 25 November 2022 at 18:18 IST
While considering a petition challenging the rules of the National Medical Commission (NMC) regarding the limited number of attempts to clear the first year examination of the MBBS course, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, observing that it. There is no opportunity to intervene with the related regulations.
Passing an order in this regard on November 17, 2022, a Delhi HC bench headed by Delhi Chief Justice Satish Chander and Justice Subramaniam Prasad declined to grant relief to the petitioners who sought relief from the HC bench, in which there was relief after eliminating all four attempts. MBBS 1st Year Exam.
They sought a direction for setting aside regulation 7.7 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 by NMC as being ultra vires to Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
As per the concerned Regulation 7.7 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, “No more than four attempts shall be allowed for a candidate to pass the first Professional examination. The total period for successful completion of first Professional course shall not exceed four (4) years. Partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt.”
However, challenging the amended regulations, the petitioner students approached the court and urged the respondents to restore and confirm their (petitioners) MBBS admission in their respective medical colleges as per the earlier policy i.e. Regulations on Undergraduate Medical Education of 1997, sought to give instructions.
Further, he had requested the court to direct the respondents to give an opportunity of mercy to the petitioners in the form of an additional examination attempt, adds PTI.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported about the matter where five exclusively MBBS students belonging to different medical colleges in the academic year 2019-20 have challenged the amendment in the Rules of Undergraduate Examination 1997 by the National Medical Council of India (Medical Council of India) was challenge.
The petition states that the impugned regulations were notified on November 4, 2019, and limit the maximum number of attempts to four to clear the first professional university examinations. Consequently, the names of these students were struck off from their respective Medical Colleges/Universities.
It was argued in the plea that the impugned regulation is discriminatory in retrospective implementation, i.e., there are different criteria for students seeking admission in different years. Sections 2 to 14 of Chapters I to V and the Appendices and Schedules appended thereto are incorporated as Part I of the Regulations of the Undergraduate Medical Education, 1997.
The retrospective Implementation of the impugned regulations is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the action of the respondents in preventing the students from appearing in the examination amount to abuse of process of law. The petition states that the petitioner is suffering continuous mental harassment due to non-availability of any remedy against the action of the respondents.
Further, it was argued in the petition that the Respondents have failed to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in letter and spirit.
It cannot be said that there is no cap on the number of attempts a candidate can make to clear an examination. The bench said that no one can have the right to attempt the examination multiple times.
While holding that the petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality in favor of the impugned regulation, the bench also held that the petitioner students had no inherent right to pursue medical degree, therefore, the impugned regulation was set aside retrospectively. Can be applied from.
It has also been determined that the Petitioners do not have a legitimate expectation to either get a degree or get another attempt. Even if it is determined that such a legitimate expectation exists, which according to this Court does not exist.
In the absence of an abuse of power, and keeping in line with the policy of the State, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Regulation on the basis of this ground, said the court.
“In light of the above, the Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Impugned Regulations. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed,” the court ordered.