University to Consider Re-Examination Request of Student Infected with Covid-19: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court in Renuka Netam vs State of Chhattisgarh & ors– WP(C) No. 4946 of 2021- directed the respondent university to consider the special circumstances of the petitioner student infected with Covid-19 during the examinations and examine the possibility of conducting re-examination. The court asked the respondent to peruse the guideline issued by the Indian Medical Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 as amended in the year 2016 wherein the students can re-appear for maximum 4 professional papers under special circumstances.
A single bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy observed:
The respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the proviso to regulation 6(4)(d) of the Indian Medical Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 as amended in the year 2016 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of fresh representation.
The petitioner, a student of first year in the respondent university (Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Smriti Ayush and Health Science University), was admitted to the Bachelor of Ayurvedic, Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) course and the examination for the said course was scheduled in the month of February when she was infected with corona virus due to which she could not prepare well for the examination, therefore she could not clear 3 papers of the said examination. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Indian Medical Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 as amended in the year 2016, proviso to regulation 6(4)(d) provides, that in case of any personal illness of a student and in any unavoidable circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned University may provide one more chance in any of the four professional examinations. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ seeking appropriate order on similar lines.
The counsels for respondents opposed the submission of the petitioner and asked for dismissal of the petition.
The court however after hearing the plea of the petitioner directed the respondent no. 3 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner as per the regulation of 1986 and pass appropriate orders within a period of 15 days from the receipt of fresh representation by the petitioner.
The court directed the petitioner to provide due documentation for her request and stated:
That, the petitioner, in respect of her claim is at liberty to file a fresh representation within a period of 10 days from today supported with all relevant documents and records.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL