One Grace Mark Plea by MBBS Students: HC Refuses Interim Order

 Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused any interim order with regard to medical students seeking grace marks in the first examination conducted after they had joined MBBS course. The vacation court panel, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a bunch of writ pleas filed by Arya Bachu and others challenging the regulations that required the students to pass in all three subjects, anatomy, biochemistry and physiology, both in theory and practical independently. Apart from a challenge to the concerned regulation, the petitioners sought one grace mark that would enable them to proceed to the next year. G. Pujitha, counsel for the National Medical Commission opposed the plea saying that awarding such marks would be contrary to the regulations. The panel adjourned the matter by two weeks at the request of Chikkudu Prabhakar, counsel for the petitioner, who wanted to file a reply to the counter filed by Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences.

Suspension of vet set aside

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court held that the suspension of an officer by the vice-chairman and managing director of the sports authority of Telangana state (SATS) on instructions of the then minister of youth advancement, tourism and culture was without jurisdiction. In consequence, he allowed a writ plea filed by Dr. T. Harikrishna, OSD, Telangana State Sports School (TSSS), Hakimpet. The petitioner was initially appointed as a veterinary assistant surgeon in the department of animal husbandry. After 24 years of service, he was appointed as an officer on special duty in TSSS. While so in August 2023, he was placed under suspension on the dictates on a note by the said minister. It is alleged that there was a newspaper report about allegations of sexual harassment of girls and women employees by the petitioner. Based on the said allegations, a five-member internal inquiry committee was constituted to conduct a detailed inquiry on the allegations and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Dealing with the law on the subject, Justice Karthik reiterated that “the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power and also the suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of the evidence available.” He pointed out that as the apex court had said “the authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it: it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising discretion in each individual case”. He added, “In the present case also, it is apparent from the impugned order that only at the instance of the note received from the minister and the article published in a local newspaper.” He accordingly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of suspension.