Revealing identity in answer sheet amounts to malpractice!- HC Upholds Dismissal of MBBS Student for violating Exam Rules

New Delhi: Highlighting the "undeniable need for maintaining the quality of education, especially in the field of medicine", the Bombay High Court recently upheld the dismissal of an MBBS student, who had challenged the annulment of his exam results and consequent disqualification from getting promoted to the second year.

However, the Court observed that the University's regulations ensuring academic integrity in medical education were neither excessive nor unfair. 

"Considering the undeniable need for maintaining the quality of education, especially in the field of medicine, where the candidate is aspiring to practice a noble profession of medicine, in our considered opinion, the punishment prescribed is appropriate and there is nothing harsh or disproportionate about it. Therefore, the challenge to the constitutional validity or vires of the said Rule, is only stated to be rejected," the HC bench comprising Justices AS Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye ruled.

The matter concerned an MBBS student who is studying at B.J Government Medical College, Pune. The petitioner has a 50% locomotor permanent disability and he appeared in the MBBS 1st year exam 2019 conducted in winter-2022 session. 

Also Read: Sympathy not ground to save admission: Gujarat HC cancels MBBS admission due to inconsistencies in caste certificate

On 16.06.2023, the petitioner received a letter from the Controller of Examinations, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) intimating a charge levelled against him of being found a written mobile number on the answer sheets during the Winter-2022 examination, in subjects of Physiology-I and Anatomy-I.

The letter required the Petitioner to appear before the Unfair Means Inquiry Committee on 26.06.2023 to show cause why the punishment as stipulated in Ordinance No. 01/2014 should not be imposed. Consequently, the petitioner appeared before the said committee, where a mistake was pointed out to him and explained that he had written all his answers with sincerity and honesty without any intention of cheating, but was not aware of the Rules.

It was contended by the petitioner that he was in a disturbed state of mind and nervous and he already suffered from physical disability. On 28/06/2023, the statement of marks of 1st MBBS 2019 examination was issued and the Petitioner noticed that against the subjects of Anatomy and Physiology, a remark of “CC” appeared and the result was shown as “FAIL Annulment of performance of examining at Winter-2022 exam” in subjects of Anatomy and Physiology.

Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of MUHS requesting to consider his case as an exceptional case for not giving severe punishment arguing that he would lose an entire year if such punishment is imposed. Getting no relief, the petitioner approached the HC bench.

The petitioner's counsel urged that the Rules requiring the Petitioner to clear all subjects of the 1st year MBBS before he could enter the 2nd year MBBS course, was ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the applicable Rule No. 71.12.12(b) imposing harsh punishment of annulment of performance of the examinee in a particular subject, is also ultra-vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Besides, it was also submitted by the petitioner's counsel that since the petitioner had cleared 1st year MBBS subjects, he should be permitted to appear for 2nd-year examination of the MBBS course, otherwise the Petitioner would lose one academic year.

On the other hand, the University's counsel argued that the petitioner had resorted to unfair means by writing his mobile number and also making an appeal for giving him passing marks in 1st MBBS examination in subjects of Anatomy-I and Physiology-I on the answer book during Winter-22 session examination. The said act of the Petitioner amounted to revealing his identity, done with the intention to seek favour from the examiner/evaluator.

He contended that when the Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee on 26/06/2023, he gave his statement orally as well as in writing. The petitioner accepted his lapse and tendered an apology. Referring to this, the University's counsel argued that as per Clause 71.12.12 (b) of the University Ordinance No. 1/2024, the punishment provided for this malpractice is “annulment of performance of the examinee in the concerned subject”, which has been duly imposed.

It was argued by the University's counsel that accordingly the petitioner's result was declared as failed and his performance was annulled for two subjects. He submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Summer 2023 exam for clearing these two subjects, as a repeater, but could pass in the Physiology subject only. Later the petitioner appeared for the subject Anatomy, in the Winter 2023 exam and passed the same, thereby passing the 1st MBBS exam completely.

Therefore, the University's counsel argued that the petitioner passed 1st MBBS fully, only in Winter 2023 and not before that. It was submitted that under the applicable Rules and Regulations as well as the policy of the University, a medical student was not allowed to keep term (ATKT) for the 1st MBBS course- meaning, that if the MBBS student fails in even one subject of the 1st year, he cannot take admission for 2nd year.

He further submitted that since the Petitioner was not admitted to 2nd year course, he has not undergone the required 12 months training after passing of 1st MBBS and as such, he is not eligible to appear for the examination of the 2nd MBBS course without undergoing the course training. At this outset, the University's counsel relied on the  "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019" framed by the Board of Governors (Now National Medical Commission), Circular dated 12/06/2023 and “Phasewise Training & Time distribution for professional development”.

While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of the "Conduct of Examination and Use of Unfair Means at an Examination" and noted, "It is, therefore, clear that if the identity is revealed by the candidate in any form in the answer book, including mobile number, the same amounts to malpractice for which quantum of punishment prescribed is annulment of performance of the candidate in the concerned examination in the concerned subject."

Accordingly, the Court highlighted the need to maintain quality of medical education and dismissed the plea. Regarding the challenge to the Advisory dated 27.10.2021 (requiring the candidate passing 1st professional examination compulsory before proceeding to 2nd MBBS training), the Court took note of the "Phase wise training and time distribution for professional development" and noted,

"It shows that a candidate/student, who fails in 1st professional examination, was not allowed to attend the 2nd professional. We note that the Rules provide that a student who fails in 2nd professional examination is allowed to join 3rd professional Part-I training, however, he is not allowed to appear for the examination unless he has passed the 2nd professional examination."

"Therefore, the provision such as keeping the term (ATKT) is provided while transition from 2nd year to 3rd year. However, for the transition from 1st year to 2nd year, there is a clear bar and it is not allowed. We agree with the obvious logic behind this rule that unless a foundational first year of MBBS course is completed in all respect including passing all subjects, a student can not be permitted to undertake further training. We are dealing with medicine course here and strict quality check such as this Rule / advisory, has to be maintained. The concerned applicable rule is made by the experts. Therefore the said advisory is also appropriate in our considered view, and the challenge to the constitutional validity or vires of the said advisory is also rejected," further observed the bench.

Accordingly, the bench held that the stand of the University in not allowing the petitioner to appear for the 2nd-year exam was "well within the bounds if the applicable rules."

"Since, the Petitioner is not even permitted to take course/training for the 2nd year, unless he clears the 1st year MBBS, obviously the Petitioner will be required to undergo 12 months course/training after clearing the 1st year MBBS examination fully in Winter2023 session," held the bench.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-order-272651.pdf

Also Read: SC Recognises Dearth of Super Speciality Doctors in Dental Science, Grants Relief to Dentists Facing Admission Cancellation