Delhi HC upholds NMC Regulations, refuses to Cap Attempts Of MBBS Prof Exams
New Delhi: While considering the plea challenging the National Medical Commission (NMC) rules regarding the limited number of attempts to clear the first-year examination of the MBBS course, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the petitions holding that it does not find any occasion to interfere with the concerned Regulations.Passing an order in this regard on November 17, 2022, the Delhi...
New Delhi: While considering the plea challenging the National Medical Commission (NMC) rules regarding the limited number of attempts to clear the first-year examination of the MBBS course, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the petitions holding that it does not find any occasion to interfere with the concerned Regulations.
Passing an order in this regard on November 17, 2022, the Delhi HC division bench headed by Delhi Chief Justice Satish Chander and Justice Subramonium Prasad denied relief to the petitioners who had sought relief from the HC bench after exhausting all the four attempts to clear the MBBS first-year examination.
They sought a direction for setting aside Regulation 7.7 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 by NMC as being ultra vires to Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
As per the concerned Regulation 7.7 of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, "No more than four attempts shall be allowed for a candidate to pass the first Professional examination. The total period for successful completion of first Professional course shall not exceed four (4) years. Partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt."
However, challenging the amended regulations, the petitioner students approached the court and sought for direction to the respondents to restore and confirm the MBBS admission of them (Petitioners) at their respective medical colleges in terms of earlier policy i.e. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
Further, they had prayed before the court for a direction to the respondents to grant a mercy chance in the form of an additional examination attempt to the Petitioners, adds PTI.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported about this matter where the five specially abled MBBS students belonging to various medical colleges in the academic year 2019-20 had challenged the amendment to Regulations of Graduate Medical Examination 1997 by the National Medical Commission (erstwhile Medical Council of India).
The plea stated that impugned Regulations were notified on November 4, 2019, and have restricted the maximum number of attempts to four to clear the first professional university exams. Consequently, the names of these students had been struck off from their respective Medical colleges/universities.
It was argued in the plea that the impugned Regulation is discriminatory in retrospective implementation i.e. having different yardsticks for students admitted in different years. The Regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 from clause 2 to 14 contained in Chapters I to V and the Appendices and Schedules appended therein have been included as Part I of the Regulation.
These provisions shall be the governing Regulations with respect to batches admitted in MBBS courses until academic year 2018-19. Part II contains new Chapters have been added to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 that shall be the governing Regulations with respect to batches admitted in MBBS course from academic year 2019-20 onwards.
The retrospective implementation of Impugned Regulations is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the action of Respondents in preventing the students from appearing in examination amount to misuse of process of law. Due to non-availability of any remedy against the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner is suffering continuous mental harassment, plea stated.
Further, it was contended in the plea that the Respondents have failed to ensure the implementation of provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 in letter and spirit.
The petitioners are all persons with disabilities who secured a seat in MBBS Course despite their disabilities. The impugned action of Respondents shall close the doors for the Petitioners to become independent and earn their livelihood as medical professionals.
The impugned regulations cannot be implemented with retrospective effect as the same was never in force, at the time of admission of the Petitioners. The Respondents have erred in hastily implementing the amended regulations with retrospective effect, as once the admission process has concluded with the given criteria for admission, the rules & regulations cannot be unilaterally & arbitrarily changed at the last moment, to affect the eligibility of a set of candidates to complete the same course, read the plea.
Earlier, while considering the matter, the Delhi HC bench had sought responses of the Central government and three medical colleges of Haryana.
However, while considering the plea, the HC bench recently noted that "it is evident that this Court does not have wide ranging powers to review policies under the ground of legitimate expectation. In the case at hand, as already discussed, the Petitioners did not have a legitimate expectation to get infinite opportunities to qualify in the medical examination."
It cannot be said that the number of attempts that can be taken by a candidate to clear an examination cannot be curbed. There cannot be a right to attempt any examination any number of times, observed the bench.
Holding that the petitioners have failed to dislodge the presumption of constitutionality existing in favour of the Impugned Regulation, the bench also noted that the petitioner students lacked any vested right to secure a medical degree, hence, the Impugned Regulation can be applied retrospectively.
It has also been determined that the Petitioners do not have a legitimate expectation to either get a degree or get another attempt.
Even if it is determined that such a legitimate expectation exists, which according to this Court does not exist, in the absence of an abuse of power, and keeping in line with the policy of the State, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Regulation on the basis of this ground, said the court.
"In light of the above, the Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Impugned Regulations. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed," the court ordered
Also Read: KGMU to expel 37 students unable to clear MBBS for 20 years after one last chance
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd