IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.219 OF 2023 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN: DR. DHARSHANA T. D/O DR. K. THINAGARAN AGED 29 YEARS REG No:19YO099 R/O. GIRLS HOSTEL M.V.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL No.75, 30TH MILE DANUDPALYA VILLAGE KOLATHUR POST HOSKOTE-562 114 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR 2 . M.V.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL No.75, 30TH MILE DANDUPALYA VILLAGE KOLATHUR POST HOSKOTE-562 114 - 2 3 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET-14, SECTOR-8 DWARAKA PHASE-I NEW DELHI-110 077 BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.No.9372/2022 AND (ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.No.9372/2022 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2022 dismissing the writ petition No.9372/2022. 2. We have heard Shri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Farah Fathima, - 3 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Shri. Suraj Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 3. The writ petitioner/appellant was a student of M.S.Ophthalmology in the second respondent - College, who obtained admission during the year 2019-20 had gone to her native place on 20.03.2020 and could not come back to rejoin the course till 20.09.2020 because of the COVID lockdown and travel restrictions. She submitted representations seeking condonation of her absence but the period of absence was not condoned and due to shortage of attendance she could not complete the course of study or be awarded the degree. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that it was only on account of the COVID restrictions that the appellant could not come back to Bengaluru. She has, thereafter, continued the course and completed three years of study. It is therefore contended - 4 that the learned Single Judge erred in not permitting her to seek award of the degree since she has completed all other elements of the course in question. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - College has placed detailed objections on record in the writ petition. It was contended that there was no total prohibition on travel of Doctors and that several post graduate students had continued in the second respondent - Hospital and had completed their studies. It is submitted that having abstained from the training programme/full time responsibilities of the Post Graduation Course from 21.03.2020 to 24.09.2020, the petitioner has absolutely no right to claim that she had "continued the course" and is entitled to be awarded the degree. It is submitted that Annexures - R4, R5 and R6 - communications had been sent to the petitioner informing her that she would have to repeat the course since she did not have the required attendance. - 5 6. Relying on the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, it is contended that the Postgraduate trainees are expected to work as full time residents during the period and shall attend not less that 80% of the imparted training during the academic term of six months. It is submitted that the petitioner, who did not possess 80% of the training during the term or even the academic year could have no right to contend that she had completed the course in question. It is submitted that the petitioner could have undergone the extension of the term, completed the requisite training period and then attempted the examination which has not been done in the instant case. It is further submitted that the contention that the hospital was a COVID Hospital during the period and that no other training was being imparted in the Hospital is absolutely untrue and that all other candidates who had joined MS Courses along with the petitioner had continued and completed their courses and had been awarded the degree. It is further contended that the petitioner has suppressed - 6 the material facts and relied on contented or fabricated documents in support of her contentions. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission (NMC), University as well as the Government supports the contentions of the College. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent - NMC has relied on the following decisions:- • Dr. Manjunath M v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Univeirty and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4533, and • Dr. Shrushti S. Patil v. Shri Dharmastala Manjunatheshwara University and another D.D. 20.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.100565/2022. 9. We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice that the petitioner admittedly did not attend the M.S. Ophthalmology Programme from 20.03.2020 to 20.09.2020. Even if the academic year is taken into account, the petitioner would not have 80% attendance either in the six months term or in the academic year in question. The learned Single Judge has considered the - 7 materials placed on record and has found that there was no restriction on Inter-State travel of medical doctors during the period in question and that the further contention that the Institution and its hospital were closed during her period of absence is a factually incorrect submission. 10. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that since identically situated students had undergone their residency and completed the course in the very same College and since the petitioner did not have 80% attendance even if the academic year is taken into account, the findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment requires no interference in this appeal since no good grounds have been made out in this intra-Court appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. - 8 Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*