Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -The petitioner is a Trust and has established institutions in primary, secondary, higher and technical education. The petitioner is running a Law College, a Management College, Mass Communication College, Physiotherapy College, Paramedical College, Science College, Dental College and a Medical College.
(2.) THE present dispute relates to the non-holding of the examinations and the declaration of its results by the University in the Medical College, Dental College and Physiotherapy College run and managed by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that necessary permission has been granted by the Medical Council of India and the Central Government for the aforesaid Medical College, Dental College and Physiotherapy College. The Medical College has been granted temporary affiliation upto the session 2004-2005 and that the Dental College was granted permanent affiliation and that the Physiotherapy College has also been granted affiliation by the respondent University, namely, Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition the petitioner contended that the examinations of eight courses are required to be conducted, by the University, the details of which are given hereinbelow : Sl. No. Course and Batah of which examination is pending Date of permission granted by the Central Government Date of Affiliation granted by University Date of last Examination held by the University Due date of Examination 1. M.B.B.S. 2nd Professional Main Examination (2002 Batch) 13.3.2003 25.9.2003 Ist Prof. Exam conducted on 10.6.2004 October, 2005 2. M.B.B.S. Final Professional (Part-I) Main Examination (2001 Batch) February, 2002 31.8.2002 Ist Prof. Examination conducted on 3.12.2004 September/October, 2005 3. M.B.B.S. Final Professional (Part-II) Main Examination (2000 Batch) 23.1.2001 3.3.2001 Final Part-I Main Exam 3.12.2004 November/December, 2005 4. B.D.S. 3rd Professional Main Examination (2002 Batch) 20.6.2002 11.8.2003 2.2.2005 January, 2006 5. B.P.T. 1st Professional Main Examination (2004 Batch) 1.7.1999 28.8.1999 Due September, 2006 6. B.P.T. 2nd Professional Main Examination (2003 Batch) 1.7.1999 28.8.1999 16.10.2004 November, 2005 7. B.P.T. 3rd Professional Main Examination (2004 Batch) 1.7.1999 28.8.1999 16.10.2004 November, 2005 8. B.P.T. 4th Professional Main Examination (2001 Batch) 1.7.1999 28.8.1999 9.8.2004 September, 2004 In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the University conducted the examinations in three courses in the month of September 2005, the results of which have not been declared so far. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent University to hold the examinations in the eight courses as indicated aforesaid and, to declare its results. The petitioner has further prayed that the results of the examinations conducted for the B.P.T. 1st Professional Examination for 2003 Batch, B.P.T. IInd Professional Supplementary Examination, 2002 Batch and B.P.T. IIIrd Professional Main Examination, 2000 Batch should also be declared.
(3.) 20 students admitted in the 2003 Batch of Physiotherapy in the Physiotherapy College of the petitioner have also filed a writ petition praying for a direction to the University to conduct and hold the IInd year examination of the B.P.T. and to declare its result. It is alleged that for running a B.P.T. course, no recommendation is required from the Medical Council of India and that the students are admitted on the basis of the Entrance Examination conducted by the University itself. The University has granted affiliation to the College for running a B.P.T. course. The grievance of the petitioners is, that the University is the examining body and could not refuse to hold the examination. Since counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in the writ petition filed by the Trust, the facts indicated therein are referred in this judgment. At the time when the writ petition was filed by the Trust, the Court granted time to the counsel appearing for the University to seek necessary instructions. Before the petition could be taken up for consideration, the University announced a schedule for holding the examinations in four courses. On the basis of this fact and, other material brought on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, an interim order dated 22.2.2006 was passed by the Court directing the University to hold the written examinations of the four courses as per the schedule announced by the University and, further conduct the practical examinations and viva voce and thereafter declare the results. The Court, further directed the University to announce the schedule for the remaining four courses and conduct the examinations or show cause by filing a counter-affidavit. The Court further passed an interim order on 26.2.2006 permitting the students who had failed in the previous examination to appear in the supplementary examination in their respective courses.;