Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) The material facts which led to this writ petition as well as writ Petition No. 2 of 1975 are that the petitioners as well as Sarvshri Ashok Sharma, Chhaju Ram and Ramesh Gupta who are petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2 of 1975 (hereinafter called the second petitioners) joined the Medical College, Rohtak as M.B.B.S. students in the year 1971. The said college was then affiliated to the Panjab University and the Regulations governing the class joined by them, were contained in the Panjab Univeristy Calendar 1971. According to the said Regulations, the course of instructions for M.B.B.S. including the internship extended to a period of five and a half years, and examination for the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) consisted of three parts, viz., First, Second and Final Professional examinations. The First Professional examination (Annual) was held in December 1972, and the petitioners as well as the second petitioners took the said examination, but they could not clear in all the papers. They, however, continued to attend the next higher class, i.e. Second Professional which commenced from January 1973-They re-appeared in the papers wherein they had failed earlier, in the Supplementary Examination held in April 1973, and were declared successful. So, they continued attending the Second Professional class and the petitioners appeared in the Second Professional Examination (Annual) held in May 1974. This time again they could not clear in all the subjects. They, however, attended the next higher class, i.e. Final Professional commencing from July 1974. They re-appeared in the Second Professional examination (supplementary) held in September 1974, but could not succeed in clearing in all the subjects. The second petitioners could not appear in the Second Professional Examination (Annual) because of shortage of lectures in certain subjects. So, they appeared in the Second Professional Examination (Supplementary) held in September 1974, but they could not clear in all the subjects. They had, however, joined the higher class, i.e. Final Professional from October 1974. On December 18, 1974, the Director-Principal (respondent No. 1) passed the order (Copy Annexure 'P-l' and marked 'P-21 in Civil Writ 2 of 1975, hereinafter called the impugned order), directing the petitioners and the second petitioners to attend the Second Professional M.B.B.S. class on the ground that they had failed to clear in all the subjects in the Second Professional Examination (Supplementary) held in September 1974. The said order was displayed on the Notice Board on December 19, 1974. The petitioners as well as the second petitioners took the said order as their demotion to a junior class. Therefore, they approached the Director-Principal and also the Vice-Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University to which the Medical College had been affiliated by that time. They also served a notice on the Director-Principal requesting him to withdraw the aforesaid order. When they did not get any favourable response, they filed the writ petitions, referred to above challenging the validity of the impugned order on the grounds; .(i) that the M.B.B.S. course was integrated one consisting of three parts, i.e. First, Second and Final Professional examinations, to be held at intervals; (ii) that the Panjab University Calendar 1971 governing them contained no provision barring their promotion to the Final Professional class even if they had failed to clear in all the subjects of the Second Professional Examination; (iii) that when they had already been promoted to the Final Professional class, they could not be demoted to the Second Professional class; (iv) that earlier, the students who had not been able to clear in all the subjects of the Second Professional examination had been allowed to continue in the Final Professional class and were further permitted to appear in the Final Professional examination, and (v) that it (the impugned order) was not a speaking one. Hence, a writ of certiorari was prayed for to quash the impugned order.
(2.) In the return which had been filed on behalf of the Director-Principal (respondent No. 1), the broad facts were admitted. The validity of the impugned order was, however, defended and the writ petitions were resisted with the pleas that the petitioners or the second petitioners were never promoted to the Final Professional class; and no such promotion to a student who had not cleared in all the subjects of Second Professional examination to the Final Professional class was either contemplated or permissible by the Regulations contained in the Pan-jab University Calendar 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Calendar); and it was due to irregular and illegal practice that students who did not clear in all the subjects of Second Professional examination had been allowed in the past to join the Final Professional class; and it was on account of the said irregular and illegal practice that the petitioners and the second petitioners had been permitted to attend the Final Professional class, and the said permission was withdrawn since it was not warranted by the Rules or Regulations; and the said withdrawal of the permission did not tantamount to demotion of the petitioners or of the second petitioners to the Second Professional class.
(3.) The principal contentions raised by Shri G. C. Garg, appearing for the petitioners and the second petitioners are three. First, that the M.B.B.S. course .joined by them was integrated one extending to three examinations, the First Second and Final Professional, to be held at intervals and, as such, they were entitled to join higher class after annual examination of the class which they had attended during the academic year irrespective of their failure to clear in all the subjects of that examination. Second, that once they had been' allowed to attend the Final Professional class, though they had been unable to clear in all the subjects of the Second Professional examination, they could not be demoted, or asked to attend the Second Professional class which pertained to the batch of students who had joined the M.B.B.S. course one year later, i.e. in 1972; and third, that in the past students who had not cleared in all the subjects of the Second Professional examination were being allowed to attend the Final Professional class and therefore the withdrawal and withholding permission to attend the Final Professional class from them led to inequality and discrimination. None of these contentions, in my opinion, is well founded. The ordinary rule, and just as well as equitable, seems to be that no student is entitled to promotion to higher class unless he passes the junior class. The students of M.B.B.S. class cannot claim exception to the said rule unless otherwise provided for in the Rules and Regulations governing them Regulation No. 12 of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Calendar (hereinafter referred to as Regulation No. 12) which is mainstay of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and second petitioners reads thus :-- "A candidate shall not be promoted to the next higher class unless he has passed the First Professional examination. However, candidates failing in the December examination for the first time may be allowed to attend the next higher class till April next. This concession will not be given to the candidates failing in April or any subsequent examination. This Regulation, therefore, provides only one exception to the said rule, and, that is, that the students of the First Professional class even if they fail in the annual examination held in December for the first time, can attend the higher class till the month of April next. What is provided by Regulation No. 12, is that if a student of First Professional class fails for the first time in the annual examination to be held in December, he may be allowed to attend the Second Professional class till April next; and that would be a sort of concession which shall not be available to him if he again fails in the Supplementary Examination to be held in April, or in any other such examination to be held subsequently in the subject(s) of the First Professional examination. The first sentence of the aforesaid Regulation reads consistent with the ordinary rule, stated above, and provides clearly that a student of First Professional class shall not be promoted to the Second Professional class unless he passes the First Professional examination. It clearly directs that promotion to the Second Professional class can be claimed by a student of First Professional class only when he passes the First Professional examination. The second sentence of Regulation No. 12, however, provides that a student of First Professional class failing for the first time in the annual examination held in December, may be allowed to attend the Second Professional class That is a mere concession, and that too is not unrestrained. It is available to him only till the month of April when the First Professional examination (Supplementary) is held. If he again fails to clear in all the subject in the said First Professional Examination (Supplementary) held in April, or in any month subsequent thereto, the said concession would Lapse and the same would no longer be available to him, and he has to go back to the First Professional class. This is, what is evident from the last sentence of the aforesaid Regulation. So, the proper analysis of Regulation No. 12 points out unmistakably that even a student of the First Professional class if he fails to clear in all the subjects in the annual examination held in December for that class is not entitled to promotion to the Second Professional class; he is merely allowed by way of concession only, to attend the Second Professional class till the Supplementary Examination to be held in April next, or in any month subsequent thereto, but if he again fails to clear in all the subjects of the First Professional class in the Supplementary Examination, the said concession would not be available to him and he will have to appear with the junior class in the annual examination in the subjects which he could not clear in "the annual examination held in December, and also in the Supplementary Examination held either in the month of April, or in any other month subsequent thereto. No such provision as contained in Regulation No. 12 meant for the First Professional class, has been made in the Calendar for a student of the Second Professional class. Therefore, the petitioners who were students of Second Professional class, could not possibly claim any concession, what to say of right to promotion to the Final Professional class, on their failure to pass the Second Professional examination (Annual) held in the month of April 1974, on the analogy of Regulation No. 12 which, as indicated above, was for the benefit of the students of First Professional class only. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners as well as the second petitioners could not clear in all the subjects even in the Second Professional examination (Supplementary) which was held in September 1974. The second petitioners could not appear in the Second Professional examination (Annual) held in May 1974 because of shortage of lectures. Therefore, even if it is claimed, though remotely on the analogy of Regulation 12--not admitted and conceded for the sake of argument only --they (the petitioners) were not entitled to the said concession to attend the Final class after September 1974 because they had failed to clear in all the subjects in the examination (Annual) held in April 1974 as well as in the Supplementary Examination held in September 1974, and the second petitioners could not take the Second Professional class (Annual) held in May 1974 and they too failed to clear in all the subjects in the Supplementary Examination held in 1974. It, thus, follows that the case may be viewed from any angle, neither the petitioners nor the second petitioners were entitled to any right of promotion to, nor even the concession to attend the Final Professional class since they failed to pass in all the subjects of the Second Professional Examination and, as such, the first contention, raised on behalf of the petitioners and the second petitioners, is devoid of any force.";