University Rule 57(D) Amended to Comply with MCI Regulation 12, Internal Assessment Marks Included

The court deemed the University's amended Rule 57(D) as ultra vires MCI Regulation 12, directing the University to incorporate internal assessment marks with theory and practical marks in recalculating grades. The petitions were granted in accordance with the specified prayer clauses, ensuring adherence to MCI's clarified interpretation of Regulation 12.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the University's amended Rule 57 in light of Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulation 12.
2. Interpretation and application of internal assessment marks in medical examinations.
3. Consistency between University regulations and MCI regulations.
4. Judicial precedents and their persuasive value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the University's amended Rule 57 in light of Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulation 12:
The petitions challenge the amended Rule 57 of the University, arguing it is inconsistent with MCI Regulation 12. The court examined whether Rule 57, which treats internal assessment as an independent passing head, aligns with MCI's regulations. The court concluded that Rule 57(D) is ultra vires Regulation 12 of MCI Regulations, as it contradicts the requirement that internal assessment marks be combined with theory and practical marks.

2. Interpretation and application of internal assessment marks in medical examinations:
MCI Regulation 12 mandates that internal assessment marks should be integrated with theory and practical marks, not treated as a separate passing head. The court emphasized that internal assessment marks are to be added to the final examination marks for theory and practicals, and not considered independently. This interpretation aligns with MCI's clarification and the Kerala High Court's judgment, which was not considered by the earlier Division Bench of this Court.

3. Consistency between University regulations and MCI regulations:
The court scrutinized the consistency between the University's rules and MCI regulations. It found that the University's amended Rule 57, which required students to pass internal assessment as a separate head, was inconsistent with MCI Regulation 12. MCI's regulations, being framed under a Central Act, take precedence over the University's rules framed under a State Act. The court declared Rule 57(D) null and void for being inconsistent with MCI's regulations.

4. Judicial precedents and their persuasive value:
The court considered the persuasive value of the Kerala High Court's judgment, which supported the integration of internal assessment marks with theory and practical marks. The earlier Division Bench of this Court had not considered this judgment or MCI's clarification. The court noted the importance of uniform interpretation of regulations across different states and chose to follow the Kerala High Court's interpretation, finding it consistent with MCI's intent and regulations.

Conclusion:
The court held that the University's amended Rule 57(D) is ultra vires MCI Regulation 12. It directed the University to recalculate the marks by adding internal assessment marks to theory and practical marks, as per MCI's regulations. The petitions were made absolute in terms of the specified prayer clauses, ensuring compliance with the clarified interpretation of MCI Regulation 12.

---