Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a final-year MBBS student sought directions against the Controller of Examination of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to correct her marksheet for the Winter 2023 examination. The controversy arose from her failure in the practical examination of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OBGYN), which she alleged was the result of vindictiveness by the Head of Department. She had passed all other subjects in first attempt. After failing OBGYN practicals, she filed a repeater form on 05/04/2024 and was admitted to the supplementary examination. Meanwhile, she filed Writ Petition No. 6837 of 2024 challenging the failure. The Vacation Bench by order dated 30/05/2024 directed the university to conduct her OBGYN practical examination at a different center on or before 06/06/2024, with the result to be submitted to the court and not publicly declared. The Supreme Court dismissed the university's special leave petition against that order on 07/06/2024, keeping the question of law open. The university conducted the practical examination on 07/06/2024, and the student scored 133 out of 200. By order dated 13/06/2024, the High Court directed that these marks be treated as her second-term practical exam marks and ordered issuance of a corrected marksheet, clarifying that the order was not a precedent and keeping the university's contentions open. The university then issued a revised marksheet showing her pass in the supplementary exam, along with an endorsement that the result was subject to an appeal to be filed in the Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the use of the word 'supplementary' and the endorsement, she filed the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that since the exam was conducted under court order, it should be treated as a first attempt, and that the supplementary label harmed her career. The university contended that she had voluntarily opted for the supplementary exam by filing the repeater form, that she had not protested, and that writ of mandamus could not be issued to break university rules. It also stated that it had already removed the endorsement and issued a fresh marksheet. The High Court examined the orders and the definition of a repeater student under Clause 2(viii) of the Conduct of Examination and Use of Unfair Means at an Examination Regulations. It noted that the petitioner and her parent had signed the repeater form knowingly and that nothing suggested the supplementary exam was taken under protest. The earlier court orders did not direct that the exam be treated as a first attempt, and the Supreme Court had kept the question of law open. The court held that the petitioner's appearance on 07/06/2024 was as a supplementary/repeater and that the word 'supplementary' was correctly reflected. The endorsement issue became infructuous as the university had already removed it. The court rejected the petitioner's main prayer and did not direct alteration of the marksheet to remove 'Supplementary Exam'. It held that the petitioner's second attempt status prevailed. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Mandamus Cannot Override University Rules - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner sought direction to university to treat court-ordered practical exam as first attempt and remove 'Supplementary Exam' from mark sheet; court held that writ of mandamus cannot be issued to break rules and that petitioner had voluntarily opted for supplementary exam by filing repeater form; accordingly, no relief granted. Held that petitioner's appearance on 07/06/2024 was as supplementary/repeater (Paras 2, 10-12). B) Education Law - Repeater Student Definition - Candidate Required to Retake Examination Due to Failure - Conduct of Examination and Use of Unfair Means at an Examination Regulations, Clause 2(viii) - The regulation defines repeater student as a candidate who is once admitted to an examination and is again required to take the same examination by reason of failure or absence; the reason for failure is irrelevant. Petitioner had failed OBGYN practical in first attempt and opted for supplementary exam, thus fitting the definition. Held that showing her as having passed in supplementary exam was correct (Paras 10, 12). C) Interpretation of Court Orders - Conjoint Reading of Prior Orders - No Direction to Treat Exam as First Attempt - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Earlier orders dated 30/05/2024 and 13/06/2024 in W.P. No. 6837 of 2024 directed conduct of practical exam and issuance of corrected marksheet but did not state that the exam was in place of original exam or first attempt; Supreme Court while dismissing SLP kept question of law open. Held that petitioner cannot rely on those orders to claim first-attempt status (Paras 4, 11). D) Administrative Law - Voluntary Conduct and Estoppel - Filing Repeater Form Bars Claim of First Attempt - Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 - Petitioner and her parent signed repeater form on 05/04/2024 after due counseling; no evidence of protest; by consciously opting for supplementary exam, she accepted its consequences. Held that the voluntary choice precluded treating the exam as first attempt (Paras 6-7, 10). E) Civil Procedure - Endorsement on Marksheet - Withdrawal of Endorsement by Respondent - No specific Act - Respondent agreed to remove endorsement that result subject to appeal to Supreme Court and had already issued fresh marksheet without it; court noted this, making that grievance infructuous. Held that no further direction was required on endorsement (Paras 5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the practical exam conducted on 07/06/2024 pursuant to court order should be treated as a first attempt and the word 'Supplementary Exam' removed from the marksheet, and whether the respondent's endorsement about pending appeal should be removed.
Final Decision
The High Court rejected the petitioner's contention that her appearance on 07/06/2024 should be treated as a first attempt. It held that the petitioner had voluntarily opted for the supplementary exam by filing a repeater form, that the earlier orders did not direct otherwise, and that the word 'Supplementary Exam' was correctly reflected. The court noted that the respondent had voluntarily removed the endorsement regarding appeal, making that grievance infructuous. The petition was dismissed; no direction to alter the marksheet was given.
Law Points
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- writ of mandamus cannot direct authority to break rules
- repeater student definition under Conduct of Examination and Use of Unfair Means at an Examination Regulations
- voluntary filing of supplementary exam form
- interpretation of prior court orders
- academic matters limited judicial review
