- (1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.3.2006, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is under challenge. The appellant is basically aggrieved against the amendment carried out by the respondent-University while amending Clause 4 of the Ordinance governing the BAMS Course which, he says has caused serious prejudice to him. The main ground of the challenge in the writ petition was that this amendment cannot be applied to the case of the appellant as it is not with retrospective effect. Otherwise, the effect of amendment is that is has resulted in disqualification of the petitioner for passing the BAMS Course. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition and the LPA are as follows :-
(2.) The appellant appeared in Pre-Medical Entrance Test (PMET) in the year 2000. The first counseling for grant of admission to BAMS Course was held in July 2000. The course, for those candidates who were selected for admission in August, commenced in August-September, 2000. The appellant did not succeed in the first counseling and as such was not granted admission. However, the second counseling for the said course was subsequently held and as being successful, the appellant was admitted for the BAMS Course at respondent No. 3-college in January, 2001. When the appellant was admitted in the BAMS Course the study thereof was divided into three professionals out of which first and second professionals were of 18 months' duration, whereas final professionals was for 24 months followed by 6 months of internship. The Ordinance regulating the duration of the course was amended w.e.f. 5.12.2001. By this amendment, duration of all the three professionals was made of 18 months and the period of internship was increased to one year from six months. It is this amendment, which according to the appellant, is standing to his prejudice for completion of course by him.
(3.) In order to substantiate his plea, the appellant has pleaded that when he was admitted in January, 2001 the first professional was of 18 months' duration. Accordingly, the examinations for the first professional were held in May-June, 2002. Though, the petitioner had joined the course in January, 2001, he cleared all the papers while appearing for the examinations in May- June, 2002. He was promoted to the 2nd Professional and the examination for which was held after 18 months' completion of the course in November-December, 2003. While appearing in 2nd Professional examination, the petitioner got reappear in two papers. As per the provisions made in the Regulations, the appellant was entitled to continue his studies in 3rd Professional, despite having got reappear in two papers in the 2nd Professional. The appellant accordingly, was permitted to attend classes for the 3rd Professional. He ultimately cleared both the reappears for 2nd Professional in April-May, 2005. He had also studied for 18 months of the final professional course. If the unamended Regulation was to apply to the appellant then the final professional course was to end on November-December, 2005. However, in view of the amended Ordinance, the duration of the final professional was reduced to 18 months and accordingly, the appellant was required to appear in the final professional examination also in April-May, 2005. Since the result of reappear examination of 2nd Professional had not been declared, the appellant was not eligible to appear in final professional examination which was to be held in April-May, 2005 though he had appeared in the re-appear examinations in the 2nd Professional. The University did not grant permission to the appellant to appear in the final professional examination. This forced him to file a Civil Writ Petition No. 6672 of 2005.;