- (1.) In these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petitions.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondents-petitioners were eligible to participate in NEET, 2016 for admission in MBBS course and after being successful in the same, they were admitted in MBBS course as per directions of the Government of Rajasthan by way of spot counseling against vacant seats and on that basis they were admitted in MBBS course on 29th September, 2016. After admission in MBBS course the respondents persuaded their study and allowed to participate in MBBS main examination conducted in August, 2017 and accordingly they participated in first examination. However, the result of the respondents was withheld as per the letter written by Medical Council of India dated 14th September, 2017 and on the other hand result of other such candidates was declared who have failed in one or two papers and the supplementary examination was to be conducted in the month of October, 2017. After founding the respondents suitable the MCI issued instructions to declare their result which was so done on 23rd December, 2017 and the respondents were declare failed in some subjects. The case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that as per provisions of Ordinance of the University, every students has two chances first in main examination and second in supplementary examination but due to withholding of result of the respondents and declaring the same in the month of December, 2017 the respondents could not get the second chance to appearing in the second examination and the University is not allowing them to appear in the second phase of the course.
(3.) The party in person Dr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Registrar (Exam) is present for the appellant-University and relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 1986 2 SCC 667 wherein it has been held as under:- "Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the Medical college established by the Daru-Salaam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University.ss Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical college started by the DaruSalaam Trust appears to stand on a different footing as we find from the record placed before us that permission had been granted by the State Government to the Trust to start the medical college and on that account, the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon the University withdrew the affiliation granted to the college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the case of the Daru-Salaam Medical College as a precedent in the present case to direct the University to do' something which it is forbidden from 0doing by the University Act and the regulations of the University. We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time. We are happy to note that the University acted watchfully and wakefully, issuing timely warnings to those seeking admission to the institution. We are sure many must have taken heed of the warnings issued by the university and refrained from seeking admission to the institution. If some did not heed the warnings issued by the university, they are themselves to blame. Even so if they can be compensated in some manner, there is no reason why that may not be done. We are told that the assets of the institutions, which have sprung out of the funds collected from the students, have been frozen. It is up to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and administrative, to compensate the students at least monetarily.";