- (1.) The petitioner is a student of M.B.B.S. in U.P. Rural Institute of Medical Science and Research, Saifai, Etawah (second respondent), which is a Government run medical college. It is affiliated to Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (first respondent)(University). The M.B.B.S. course is divided into three Professionals. The first and second Professionals are each of 18 months duration. A candidate is declared passed in the Professional exam only if he has obtained 50% of marks in each subject at the University examination. The petitioner could not obtain the requisite marks in Pathology and Pharmacology in the Second Professional Examination and was therefore declared failed. In order to clear these papers, he appeared in the supplementary examination held in the month of August-September, 2015. He succeeded in clearing Pathology but in Pharmacology he obtained 60 marks out of 125, which is 2.5 marks less than 50%. The University, therefore, declared him failed. The case of the petitioner is that under Regulation 13 (10) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997(Regulations) framed by Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, he was entitled to award of upto five marks as grace mark. The University had wrongly denied grace mark to him and had also wrongly declared him failed. Regulation 13 (10) reads as under:- "(10) The grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects"
(2.) The petitioner has accordingly prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 11.1.2016, whereby the Deputy Registrar (Medical), Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur informed him that there is no provision in the University for award of grace marks in the supplementary examination. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to award grace marks to him and declare him passed in the second Professional examination so as to entitle him to appear in the final Professional Part I examination.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India(MCI) are binding on the University. It cannot make an imaginary distinction between the main examination and the supplementary examination in denying the benefit of grace marks to a candidate. It is pointed out that in the past, the University had given benefit of grace marks to one Akant Pandey in the supplementary examination in declaring him passed and thus, the action of the University vis-a-vis the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory.;