Bangalore: Differences between a college head and a student can reach such unimaginable limits, came to light in a recent ‘interim order’ passed by the Karnataka High Court in the recent case of Dr Nagesh M v/s Medical Council of India, RGUHS and MVJ Medical College. Through an interim order, the court was seen granting a petitioner student permission to write his post graduate exam who was earlier debarred by the college from writing the exams on account of shortage of attendance . While with the previous interim order of the court, the doctor was allowed to sit for the exams, but the college refused to release on account of the pendency of the case
In his plea to the court, it was alleged by the doctor Nagesh, a Radio Diagnosis, PG student with MVJ Medical College that the college had manipulated its attendance register to appease the Chairman of the institution’s wrath against the said student. The counsel for the petitioner argued that even the documents obtained by the petitioner through an RTI with the MCI, Rajiv Gandhi University established that the petitioner had the required attendance as per MCI regulations. He even referred to a letter of the HOD which stated that the student stood victimized.
Having heard all the parties including the Medical Council of India and based on the report of the committee that inspected the college based on the issue, the court observed that it could not rule out the possibility of the attendance register being manipulated by the said college
…….It is obvious that the Management is the custodian of the attendance register. Manipulation of the attendance register to suit the convenience of the Management cannot be ruled out. Issue of attendance cannot be taken as a tool to settle the disputes between the Management and the students. If there is any manipulation found in the attendance register, as observed by the Enquiry Committee, that would not lend any credence and requires to be ignored considering the attendance abstract placed before the MCI. As aforesaid, the Enquiry Committee report is in favor of the petitioner. Considering all these aspects, the allegation of respondent No.3 (Medical College) as regards the shortage of attendance of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
It has to be viewed as mere allegation made against the petitioner in retaliation to some personal enmity or dispute. Viewed from any angle, the 3rd respondent-college denying the petitioner to appear for P.G. examination is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained. It is a classical case of a student suffering in the hands of the Management.
The case now stands disposed in favour of the student. The college has been directed to release the students mark sheets along with other documents.