- (1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. These bunch of three categories of writ petitions have been filed by various students belonging to MBBS examination, BDS examination and MBBS supplementary examination.
(2.) THE writ petitions, which pertain to the group of BDS examination, are Writ petition Nos. 5450 (MS) of 2006, 5454 (MS) of 2006, 2998 (MS) of 2007, 3010 (MS) of 2007, 2999 (MS) of 2007, 3060 (MS) of 2007, 2860 (MS) of 2007, 3132 (MS) of 2007, 3133 (MS) of 2007, 3000 (MS) of 2007 and 3043 (MS) of 2007. THE other category of writ petitions pertaining to MBBS examination are 409 (MS) of 2007, 3238 (MS) of 2007, 3401 (MS) of 2007, 3053 (MS) of 2007, 1620 (MS) of 2007 and 1644 (MS) of 2007 of which the leading Writ Petition is 3010 (MS) of 2007; Attaullah Khan and others v. state of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 3053 (M/s) of 2007 pertains to supplementary examination of M. B. B. S. Course. The petitioners of above noted writ petitions pertaining to MBBS and BDS examination challenge the power of the University to raise the standard of examination by revising the marking criteria whereas the students who are appearing in the supplementary examination of MBBS course allege that the same standard of marking should be applied in their case as according to the old rules thei batch mates have passed out and because of the fact that they are appearing ii the supplementary examination therefore they are also entitled for the same criteria of marking. The initial dispute arose before this Court when a writ petition No. 537 (MS) of 2006 was filed by the students of BDS course in this Court claiming that they are the students of BDS course in Sardar Patel Institute of Dental & Medica Sciences, affiliated to the Awadh University and they have appeared in the examination for the academic session 2005-06, which commenced on 18. 9. 2006 and the practical whereof were concluded on 5. 10. 2006 and therefore it was urge that the petitioners on the date when the examination commenced were governess by the Rules that were then in vogue and not which were proposed to be amended by the examination committee vide its resolution dated 5. 10. 2006. It was also urged that the University cannot apply new rules on the petitioners on the ground that the rules have been subsequently amended and approved by the academic council on 17. 11. 2006 and by the executive council on 18. 11. 2006.
(3.) THE Court after hearing the parties came to a definite conclusion that the new rules could not have been applied in respect of those candidates who have appeared in the examination prior to amendment of the rules and therefore the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the Coordinator on 9. 10. 2006 was having no authority in law to amend the aforesaid rules retrospectively even in respect of the examinations which had already commenced prior to the proposal dated 5. 10. 2006 relating to the academic session 2005-06. It was also found by the Court that retrospective operation of the new rules under the executive order of the Coordinator was not permissible in law. THE University was also not justified in giving it retrospective operation as neither any rule nor the statutes empower the university for the time being in force to give retrospective effect to a decision in respect of such amendments, which has been undertaken in the present case and therefore the Court held that the declaration of result of the students of the said writ petition according to the amended rules as communicated through the order of the Coordinator is illegal. After the allowance of the aforesaid writ petition, the result was declared according to the old rules. After the judgment passed in the case of Arti Garg (supra), the University declared the result of all those BDS students who have participated in the examination prior to 9. 10. 2006. It is from this stage that the litigation ensued in the university by various students as indicated above challenging the power of the University to make amendment in the rules and also contending that even if the rules are applied then with respect to one examination one set of rules will apply and different set of rules cannot be applied as has been done in the case of certain students of MBBS course appearing in the supplementary examination whose result is sought to be declared on the basis of amended rules.;