Shashank S. Reddy vs Registrar (Evaluation)
2021 Latest Caselaw 6317 Kant

                            1                         R
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO.9619 OF 2021(EDN-RES)
                        C/W
       WRIT PETITION NO.13119 OF 2021(EDN-RES)

IN WP NO.9619/2021
BETWEEN:

VISHWESHWARA C
S/O KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
REGISTER NO.19M4199
1ST YEAR MBBS STUDENT OF
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH CENTRE
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE-574146
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. REGISTRAR(EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-41

2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-41
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
                                2


     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE REGULATION
NO.5 OF RESPONDENT ORDINANCE DATED 01.02.2021 IN REF. AS
PER ANNEXURE-C AS INCOMPLETE, ARBITRARY AND SEEKS TO
INFUSE INEQUALITY AND THEREFORE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

IN WP NO.13119/2021
BETWEEN:

SHASHANK S. REDDY
S/O. C. N. SHANTH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
REGISTER NO. 19M1200,
1ST YEAR MBBS STUDENT OF
VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH CENTRE, BENGALURU.

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SARVANA.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. REGISTRAR(EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-41

2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-41
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE REGULATION
NO.5 OF RESPONDENT ORDINANCE DATED 1.2.2021 IN
                                    3


REFERNECE AS PER ANNEXUE-B AS INCOMPLETE, ARBITRARY AND
SEEKS TO INFUSE INEQUALITY AND THEREFORE IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

    THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 06.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

These writ petitions are filed questioning the Ordinance

dated 1.2.2021 on the ground that it is incomplete, arbitrary

and seeks to infuse inequality and therefore, is violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are also

seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct

respondents to conduct fresh evaluation of their answer scripts

pertaining to 1st year MBBS Phase-I.

2. The common grievance of the petitioners in the

present batch of writ petitions is that respondents for the

purpose of evaluation of answer scripts have promulgated

ordinance governing Central Assessment Program[CAP] for

theory paper assessment of MBBS course, which is applicable

to the examinations conducted on or after 1.2.2021. The

petitioners contend that the impugned Ordinance has resulted

in gross discrimination between the nature of evaluation,

consideration of marks and also yardstick which is proposed to

be adopted for ironing out the differences in evaluation. They

further contend that on account of impugned Ordinance, they

have lost few marks. The petitioners also claim that they

would have automatically passed being eligible as per

Regulation of Graduate Medical Education 1997, which

provides grace marks up to maximum of five marks and if

applied, would have cleared the examination as a whole.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the

amended 2019 Ordinance runs contrary to the several

directions issued by this Court. The counsel would further

contend that the impugned Ordinance is issued without

seeking opinion of expert body and therefore, it does not

augur well for the future medical education. The petitioners

grievance is that the students community should have also

been heard in the matter. He further contends that the

impugned Ordinance lacks broad vision and therefore, the

same is susceptible as it does not satisfy the Constitutional

mandate.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Nanjunda Reddy,

reiterating the defence taken in the statement of objections

would submit that the earlier Ordinances dated 29.3.2019 and

13.10.2020 were subject matter of batch of writ petitions and

the Regulations were quashed by this Court in

W.P.No.31335/2019 and W.P.No.231/2021. The respondents

have promulgated the impugned Ordinance so as to keep the

system in place thereby the majority of the students are not

put to hardship. The learned counsel would also place reliance

on the judgment rendered by this Court by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and submit that this

Court has observed that "it is open for the University to

promulgate similar Ordinance and may adopt double valuation

under new amended MCI Regulations".

5. Learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance

on the amended Regulations of Graduate Medical Education

Regulation, 1997 which was brought into force w.e.f.

6.11.2019 and therefore, submits that the students admitted

for the academic year 2019-20 onwards are bound by the

amended Regulations under Clause 11.2.9(j). The learned

Senior Counsel would also lay emphasis in promulgating the

impugned Ordinance by respondents. He would submit to this

Court that as the examination process have commenced which

was first annual examinations for the students appearing

under the amended MCI Regulations, it was well within the

discretion and powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under

Section 13(2) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Act, 1994 (for short "RGUHS Act, 1994") to introduce the

impugned Ordinance in the meeting of the Committee of

Academic Council which was held on 1.2.2021. He would

submit that after deliberations, the Ordinance introduced by

the Vice-Chancellor was approved by the Committee of

Academic Council. The new Ordinance which has introduced

the new policy of assessment of theory answer scripts is

strictly in consonance with the MCI Advisory and therefore, the

petitioners who are students have no locus standi to question

the legality of the Ordinance just to get their answer scripts

revaluated.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court

through the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, 1994 and also

Section 35(2)(d) and Section 35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act,

1994. The learned Senior Counsel has further taken this Court

through all the Ordinances promulgated by the respondent-

University. On these set of defences, learned Senior Counsel

has placed reliance on following judgments:

"1. (1984) 4 SCC 27- Mharashtra Board of Sec. Edn Vs. Parithosh.

2. (2018) 2 SCC 357 - Ran Vijay Singh Vs State of UP

3. Judgment in C A 1264/2019 - High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi - D.D. 6.2.2019= 2019 SC Online SC

139.

4. (2012) 1 SCC 157 - Sanchit Bansal Vs Joint Admission Board.

5. AIR 2009 SC 2322 - AICTE Vs Surinder Kumar.

6. (2004) 6 SCC 714 - Promod Kumar Srivatsava Vs Chairman Bihar PSC.

7. Judgment in W.A 6735/2020 - Ms. R.Varsha Vs. RGUHS (DB) D.D.2.06.2017

8. Judgment in W.P. 58303/2017 - Vamsi T N Vs. RGUHS D.D. 16.01.2018

9. Judgment in W.P. 31195/2016 & connected W.P's- Mr.Vishnuram & othrs. Vs RGUHS.

10. Judgment in W.P. 15042/2027 Basanth K.B & Othrs Vs. RGUHS"

7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, the

learned Senior Counsel submits that the Ordinance is strictly

in terms with the amended Regulations and therefore, the

present petitioners who were admitted post 2019 were well

aware of the amended regulations and therefore, cannot seek

four valuation system. On these set of grounds, he would

submit to this Court that the ordinance passed by the

respondent-University does not suffer from any arbitrariness

and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate the

discrimination as alleged in the writ petitions. The ordinance

under challenge satisfies the Constitutional mandate and

therefore, may not warrant judicial review at the hands of this

Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the counsel appearing for respondents.

9. Before I proceed with the present controversy on

hand, this Court needs to allude to the checkered history to

the challenge of Ordinances that were passed from time to

time by respondent-University. The Syndicate of respondent-

University has promulgated Ordinances from time to time

under Section 35(1) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. There has been

consistent challenge to the Ordinances passed by the

respondent-University and this probably prompted the

respondent-University in revising and revamping the process

of providing valuation and revaluation of answer papers of

Undergraduate Medical, Dental and Super specialty courses.

10. The 1999 Ordinance reads as under:

"(A) Para 3 (ii) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (Provision for double valuation) Ordinances, 1999 reads as under:

"DOUBLE VALUATION"

"ii. All answer papers wherein the difference in award of marks between the first and second value is 20% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for that paper, shall be referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from the approved panel. The average marks of any two valuations close to each other shall be the final marks to be awarded for declaration of result. If the difference between any of the two valuations out of the three is same, then the award for declaration of result shall be chosen to the best advantage of the candidate. In all other cases, the average of the marks awarded by the first and second valuers shall be taken as final."

(B) 2010 Ordinance Governing Revaluation: The 2010 "Ordinance Governing Revaluation", promulgated vide Notification dated 23.03.2010 introduced the revaluation system by the 3rd and 5th examiners for 87 U.G. and P.G. examinations respectively. Paragraph 4 of the said Ordinance reads as under:

"PROCEDURE FOR REVALUATION:

(i) All the answer papers wherein the difference in award of marks between two valuers and four valuers as the case may be in the general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to a 3rd or 5th examiner as the case may be for

valuation appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.

(ii) The average of the marks awarded by the 3rd examiner and the marks close to it in the two general valuations shall be considered for final computation of the results.

(iii) The average of marks awarded by the 5th examiner and the other three marks close to it amongst the four general valuation marks shall be considered for the final computation of the results. The marks awarded and the results declared after revaluation shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained."

(C) Paragraph 4 of 2012 "Ordinance Governing Multiple valuation", published vide Notification dated 15.06.2012 reads as under:

"4. PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE VALUATION:

(i) All the answer-papers which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.

(ii) All the answer-papers which are subjected for four valuations, wherein the difference in 88 award of marks between FOUR valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to FIFTH examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.

(iii) The average of BEST OF TWO OUT OF THREE VALUATION marks or the average of BEST OF FOUR OUT OF FIVE VALUATION MARKS as the case may be shall be considered for the final computation of the results.

(iv) The marks awarded and the results declared after

considering this notification shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained."

(D) 2017 Ordinance promulgated vide Notification dated 09.01.2017 for U.G. examination has been extracted hereunder:

"Each paper shall be subjected for double valuation. The deviation report shall be generated based on the actual marks scored by the candidate if the difference of marks between valuations is > 15 % of the maximum marks stipulated for the paper without rounding up the marks to the next higher whole digit. Average of best of two valuation marks shall be considered for final computation of results after rounding up the fractional mark, if nay, to the next higher whole digit."

(E) 2017 Ordinance promulgated vide Notification dated 17.10.2017 for the examinations of P.G. Degree and Diploma Courses, paragraph (b) whereof, reads as under:

"b) In the answer paper, if the difference in the marks awarded between four evaluators is equal to or more than 15%, such answer papers shall be referred to 5th valuation."

11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Sri Neelesh Mehta.vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences & Another(W.P.No.31335/2019) along with

connected writ petitions while interpreting 13(2) of 1997

Regulation with that of Regulation 14(1)(b) of the MCI Post

Graduate Medical Regulations 2000 (MCI Regulations, 2000)

was not inclined to accede to the contentions of respondent-

University that amended MCI Regulations 2019 adopting

double valuation method has to be implemented

retrospectively. The learned Single Judge of this Court was of

the view that amended MCI Regulations 2019 is prospective in

nature and even if the MCI Regulations 2019 on account of

prospective application may open a flood gate of litigations

cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the similarly placed

students in availing four valuation system even for

undergraduate medicine students. In operative portion, the

Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court however left it to the wisdom

of respondent-University to re-promulgate similar Ordinance if

and when it duly adopts double valuation method under the

now amended MCI Regulations.

12. The respondent-University by notification dated

13.10.2020 citing compliance of directions issued by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and

connected matters brought an amendment to the Ordinance

as follows:

"ACA/DCD/UG/EXAM/404/2020-2021 Dt:13/10/2020

NOTIFICATION

Sub: Amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme).

Ref: 1. Directions of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters 10/08/2020.

2. Minutes of the 152nd Syndicate meeting held on 09/10/2020.

The Syndicate in its 152nd meeting held on 09/10/2020 has approved implementation of the directions of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters regarding valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme).

Hence in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35(1) of RGUHS Act, 1994, amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme) is notified as below.

a. All answer scripts of Undergraduate Course in Medical (RS-3 Scheme) shall be subjected to Digital Valuation by the four evaluators in which 50% of them by Internal examiners and 50% by external examiners of different University other than RGUHS and preferably by outside the state as prescribed by MCI/RGUHS. The average of the total marks awarded by the four evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for computation of the results.

b. The marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained.

This amendment to the ordinance is applicable with immediate effect.

By Order.

Sd/-

REGISTRAR"

13. As expected this amendment was also called in

question by batch of students in series of writ petitions filed in

W.P.No.231/2021 and connected writ petitions. The grievance

of the students was that the amendment to Ordinance

governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course is

unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having examined

the rival contentions canvassed by the petitioners and

respondent-University and having bestowed its considerations

was of the view that the amendment to Ordinance governing

valuation of answer scripts was brought in by the Vice-

Chancellor without consultation with the Academic Council and

in the absence of experts opinion as required under Section

35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act, 1994, and as such the impugned

Ordinance dated 13.10.2020 is without authority of law. The

Co-ordinate Bench while parting with the judgment directed

the respondent-University to come up with a policy after

securing opinion from experts which would be in the best

interest of medical education and consequently the

amendment governing valuation of answer scripts was

quashed and a mandamus issued to the respondent-University

to carry out valuation by adopting four valuation system.

14. The respondent-University in compliance of the

directions issued by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.31335/2019 has come up with the impugned Ordinance

dated 1.2.2021 and the same is titled as Ordinance Governing

Central Assessment Programme for theory paper assessment

of MBBS course. Clause 3(a), 3(b) and clause (5) reads as

under:

"3. DEFINITIONS:

a. General Valuation - means two evaluations conducted by two independent examiners of a particular theory Answer script subject.

b. Deviation Valuation - means the valuation conducted by the 3rd examiner as per this Ordinance in case of deviation between the total marks awarded by the two examiners in the General Valuation is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper. The algebraic formula for the purpose of 3rd valuation shall be as follows

"If the total mark awarded by the first examiner is X, and that awarded by the second examiner is Y, and the maximum marks prescribed is Z, then answer paper goes for the third valuation if [X-Y] ≥ (0.15 X Z)".

c. Central Assessment Programme (CAP)- means conduct of MBBS theory paper assessment through digital valuation system as per this Ordinance.

5. Procedure for Valuation of Theory Answer Scripts:

a. All the theory answer scripts are evaluated through Digital valuation System of RGUHS.

b. i) General Valuation: All the theory answer scripts shall be evaluated by eligible examiners as specified in 11.2.9(a) any of GMER, 2019. Every theory answer script shall be evaluated by any eligible two Internal examiners from affiliated institutes of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.

c. ii) Deviation Valuation: All the theory answer scripts where the difference in award of total marks between two examiners in the general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to any other eligible 3 internal examiner for evaluation."

15. Before promulgating the impugned Ordinance, the

Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University in exercise of his

power conferred under Section 13(2) of the RGUHS Act, 1994,

placed the Ordinance before the Committee of Academic

Council which was held on 1.2.2021. On perusal of Annexure-

R2, it is clearly evident that the Ordinance was placed before

the Committee of Academic Council under Subject No.2 and

the Academic Council ratified the Ordinance and recommended

to place it before the Syndicate. Thereupon the Ordinance so

introduced by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the

Committee of Academic Council was placed before the

Syndicate which deliberated on the subject and the Syndicate

passed a resolution on 21.2.2021.

16. The Advisory Board namely National Medical

Commission by a notification dated 28.1.2021 vide Annexure-

R4 in terms of Graduate Medical Education

Regulations(Amendment) 2019 directed the University to

adhere to Part-II Clause 11.2.9 of Amended Regulations 2019

in regard to appointment of external examiners. The National

Medical Council also by way of advisory directed the

respondent-University that it may adopt the clause mentioned

in 11.2.9(j) of Graduate Medical Education

Regulations(Amendment) 2019.

17. It would be also useful for this Court to refer to

clause 11.2.9(j) of Regulations of Graduate medical

Education(Amendment) 2019, which reads as under:

"(j)All theory paper assessment should be done as Central Assessment Program(CAP) of concerned university"

18. The question that would arise before this Court is

whether the impugned Ordinance as per Annexure-B is vitiated

by lack of nexus with the object which is sought to be

achieved by the respondent-University. This Court needs to

examine whether there are any glaring aberrations and

infractions of statutory Rules while promulgating the impugned

ordinance. The grievance of the failed students before this

Court is that the impugned ordinance is contrary to the

direction issued by this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and a

contention is raised that there cannot be two valuations for

under graduates and post graduates. The petitioners claim

that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has struck down the

impugned notification dated 29.3.2019 in its entirety by

declaring that there cannot be two systems of evaluation. The

petitioners are also aggrieved on the ground that respondent-

University has not taken experts view from the community of

students. If these grounds urged in the writ petitions are

taken into consideration, the petitioners have challenged the

impugned ordinance on the ground of discrimination and also

on the ground that the impugned ordinance is promulgated in

violation of the directions issued by the Co-Ordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019.

19. Let me examine the controversy in the present

cases on hand in the light of the directions issued by the Co-

Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019 and also

the authority of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) of

RGUHS Act, 1994.

20. On a plain reading of Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act

1994, what emerges is that Vice-Chancellor under the said

Section has power to take appropriate action relating to affairs

of the University. What can be gathered is that he is the

principal executive and academic Officer of the University and

is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of

academic as well as non-academic affairs. The Vice-

Chancellor of the respondent-University has power to regulate

the work and also has emergency powers to deal with any

untoward situation. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the

Vice-Chancellor has a pivotal position as the Principal

Executive officer who carries with him certain implied powers.

21. In the preceding paragraph, I have referred to the

relentless challenge to the Ordinances. The Vice-Chancellor

in the present case was compelled to invoke Section 13(2) of

RGUHS Act, 1994 as respondent-University had to streamline

the evaluation system with the ensuing March 2021

examinations. Therefore, under compelling reasons, the Vice-

Chancellor of the respondent-University having taken note of

amended MCI Regulations introduced the impugned

Ordinance. Having done so, the same was placed before the

Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 which

deliberated on the issue and approved the impugned

Ordinance and the same is ratified by the Syndicate which is

evident from Annexures-R3 and R4.

22. The petitioners though have alleged arbitrariness

while promulgating Ordinance have failed to demonstrate

arbitrariness. What is pleaded and argued before the Court is

that the impugned Ordinance leads to discrimination. But,

however, no materials are placed.

     23.   The      impugned      ordinance         promulgated    by

respondent-University is      approved by the          Committee of

Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 and the same is ratified by

the Syndicate on 21.2.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the impugned Ordinance is outrageous as it defies of logic or

moral standards. Nothing has been brought to my notice

which prohibits the promulgation of impugned Ordinance. This

Court is also of the view that the petitioners have failed to

establish that the respondent-University has adopted unfair

methods while promulgating the impugned Ordinance. It is

also found that there are absolutely no materials to indicate

the magnitude of impugned action so disproportionate that

erratic evaluation would go unnoticed under the impugned

Ordinance.

24. The respondent-University has taken all possible

steps to revise and revamp the process to a great extent by

introduction of digital evaluation system. The initial teething

problems in conducting exams and evaluating the papers are

eventually standardized. This Court has to bear in mind that

there are hundreds of colleges with more than lakhs of

students studying in various professional courses which comes

under the umbrella of RGUHS. Every year, lakhs of answer

scripts are evaluated in a single valuation and the number

becomes more than double after deviation valuation. If these

factual aspects are taken into consideration, this Court is of

the view that enormous amount of paper work and human

resources are utilised for a seamless work flow. This Court

has to also bear in mind the manner in which the respondent-

University utilises its entire human resources who work

tirelessly without withering to give the results and these

results are with just a click of mouse button on computers and

other electronic mobile gadget screens.

25. The respondent-University has also come out with a

software which is programmed to auto-detect marks difference

equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed

for the paper in general valuation after the second valuation

where two valuation system is adopted for UG students. This

auto-generated deviation report will further automatically

allows the third valuation which are eligible for deviation

evaluation.

26. The Committee of Academic Council held on

1.2.2021 which deliberated on the issue has approved the

Ordinance and the same is ratified by the Syndicate. The

Academic Council is the principal academic body of the

respondent-University and exercises its general supervision

over the academic policies of the University. The Committee

of Academic Council has deliberated on the issue in regard to

adoption of two valuation system for undergraduate students

and has also looked into the deviation valuation in the event

marks difference is equal or more than 15% of the maximum

marks prescribed. The counsel appearing for the petitioners

while arguing the case did make a feeble attempt in

questioning the deviation method adopted under the

impugned Ordinance and contended that the marks difference

has to be between the two evaluators and not against

maximum marks prescribed. This Court is unable to accede to

such an argument. The academic policies have to be revised,

reviewed by a competent Committee of Academic council. The

Ordinance under challenge is approved by the Committee of

Academic Council and later it was placed before the Syndicate.

The Syndicate comprises of various experts and includes the

Vice-Chancellor, Secretary to Government, in-charge of Health

and Family Welfare, the Secretary to Government in-charge of

Medical Education and also includes the Directors of Health

and Family Welfare, Medical Education and Indian System of

Medicine and Homoeopathy, Karnataka, the Presidents of

Karnataka Chapter of the Indian Medical Association,

Karnataka Medical Council and three persons elected by the

Senate amongst themselves. The Syndicate also comprises of

a Professor nominated by a Vice-Chancellor and two heads of

University and a nominee from an autonomous Government

Medical institute and three experts in the field of health

science and other nominated persons from among the eminent

persons in the field of health science. The Syndicate has also

ratified the Ordinance under challenge.

Ordinance questioned on the ground of discrimination:

27. The petitioners are insisting that respondent-

University should apply the formula as provided in the

Ordinance governing the PG students of the respondent-

University and therefore are contending before me that they

are entitled for four valuation as contemplated for PG

students. The Ordinance is attacked on the ground that it

leads to discrimination. The strength of undergraduate

students cannot be matched with that of Post Graduate

students. The Academic Council has approved the double

valuation system and the same is ratified by the Syndicate.

The Medical Council of India which is also an Advisory Board

has also approved it with a direction to the respondent-

University to conduct exams in terms of Amended 2019

Regulations of the Graduate Medical Education. The

respondent-University is not accountable to the Courts in

respect of policies relating to academics. However, the

respondent-University is accountable for legality of such

decisions. Any academic policy, unless it is absolutely

capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary or is violative of any

constitutional provision cannot be a subject matter of judicial

review. The petitioners cannot insist that respondent-

University should adopt four valuation system that is

applicable to PG students. There cannot be discrimination

among different classes. The petitioners have not placed any

material which would indicate that the impugned Ordinance is

violative of Article 14 and the same leads to discrimination.

The burden is on the petitioners who are complaining of

discrimination. The rule of parity is equal treatment of equals

in equal circumstances. The circumstances which govern one

set of persons may not necessarily be the same as governing

another set of persons. In the light of the above said

principle, this Court is unable to understand as to how the

petitioners who have failed in subjects can insist the

respondent-University to adopt the formula applicable to PG

students. The claim made by the petitioners is unreasonable.

Scope of Judicial Review:

28. The respondent-University is entitled to make

pragmatic adjustments which may be necessary to maintain

standard of education or in a given situation to enhance the

standard of education. Therefore, the Constitutional Courts

cannot be expected to presume that the Ordinance setting up

a particular method of evaluation is unconstitutional nor the

Courts can substitute their own opinion as against an expert's

opinion which is ratified by a competent authority.

29. If the significant details referred to in the preceding

paragraphs are taken into consideration, the petitioners have

failed to make out a case indicating on what grounds the

Ordinance stands vitiated. The Apex Court in catena of

judgments has held that the Court cannot usurp or abdicate

the parameters of judicial review and the parameters of

judicial review must be clearly defined and acceded.

30. The Apex Court in Basavaiah(Dr.) .vs. Dr.H.L.

Ramesh(2010) 8 SCC 372 has held as follows:-

"28. The scope of interference in academic matters has been examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640, the Court held as under:-

"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."

The Supreme Court in another judgment reported

as University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil

Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519, held that in academic

matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory

provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the

Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall

within the domain of the experts of the Court. The Apex

Court has held as under:

"31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546; and, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.9729 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12147 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12218 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12403 of 2018 opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The Apex Court in All India Council for Technical

Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009)

11 SCC 726, has held as under:

"16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.

17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in."

Further, at Paragraphs 26 to 27 has observed thus:

"26. This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain this court held: [(2007) 4 SCC 737, para 16]

"16....Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review..."

27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious."

31. If the Committee of a Academic Council and the

Syndicate of the respondent-University have acted in a fair

manner and if the Ordinance is free from the taint of

unreasonableness, there is no scope for judicial review. Policy

decisions in the matters affecting the policies and

administration relating to medical courses should be rather left

to the wisdom of experts formulating the policies relating to

maintaining standard of education in the field of medicine.

The present Ordinance under challenge thoroughly contains an

academic element and therefore, this Court cannot encroach

upon and test the wisdom of experts and also encroach into

the inherent jurisdiction of experts body who are vested with

power to revive, revamp the policies relating to the academics.

32. The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala .vs.

N.M.Thomas reported in (1976) 2 SCC 310 has held that

discretion is the essence of classification. Equality is violated

if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has

an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of

constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly

circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. The doctrine of

equality founded under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

is amongst equals. Classification is, therefore to be founded

on substantial differences which distinguishes persons grouped

together from those left out of the groups and such differential

attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object

sought to be achieved. This equality of opportunity cannot be

confused by equating different class of groups. In the present

case on hand, the petitioners are insisting that the

respondent-University should also adopt four valuation system

to the Undergraduates. This Court is unable to understand as

to how the policies which are formulated to conduct exams in

respect of PG students can be adopted to the UG students

also. There is no discrimination among equals as PG students

constitute a totally different class and the magnitude of the

students pursuing UG course cannot be compared to those

pursuing PG course. Therefore, the policy in regard to

evaluation of answer scripts of UG students would stand on

totally different footing. This Court is unable to understand as

to how the petitioners who have failed in subjects can question

the Ordinance and also suggest as to how the evaluation of

the papers has to be conducted by the respondent-University.

Any indulgence by this Court in this regard would only lead to

catastrophe and would lead to compromise to standards in

medical education.

33. This Court is also not inclined to entertain the claim

made by the students as to how the deviation valuation is to

be adopted. The petitioners claim that while determining

deviation, the respondent-University should take into

consideration the difference in award of marks between two

valuations and not difference in award of marks between two

valuators as against maximum marks prescribed for the paper.

I am unable to understand as to how the petitioners can insist

that the deviation valuation has to be done in a particular

manner when more particularly the Committee of Academic

Council, the Syndicate and also the Advisory Board of Medical

Council of India have approved the method of double valuation

system and also have approved the deviation valuation.

34. The medical students are placed at a higher

pedestal on account of their crucial role in the health care

system of the society. Therefore, the students who are

pursuing medicine have to maintain high academic integrity.

Medical students have to work hard and earn their degrees in

a fair and honest way by putting in the hours to study and

complete assignments. Then only the students can gain the

good worth of medical education and would contribute a lot to

the health care system of the society. Maintaining academic

integrity while earning a medical degree represents true

academic accomplishments. It is this credibility and work

ethics which would take a medical doctor a long way at his

work place and at the end of the day it is the patient who

would benefit. Therefore, medical students cannot insist for

lowering the education standards and therefore, the challenge

to the impugned Ordinance has to fail.

35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court would draw

the following conclusions:

(i)The impugned Ordinance dated 1.2.2021 is

promulgated by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act.

(ii)The notification was placed in the meeting of the

Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 and the

same is approved by the Committee. The Ordinance so

introduced by the respondent-University which is approved by

the Committee of Academic Council is ratified by the Syndicate

on 21.2.2021. Therefore, the Ordinance under challenge was

not only passed in consultation with the Academic Council but

the same is approved by the Committee of Academic Council

and consequently, it is ratified by the Syndicate.

(iii)The new policy of assessment of the answer scripts of

UG students is as per the MCI Advisory.

(iv)The impugned Ordinance under challenge is

promulgated subsequent to the judgment rendered by the Co-

Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31555/2019 wherein this

Court reserved liberty to the respondent-University to re-

promulgate similar ordinance. In the very same judgment,

the Co-Ordinate Bench was also of the view that the

Regulation on Graduates Medical Education (Amendment)

2019 can be made only applicable to the courses commencing

from the Academic Year 2019-20 onwards and the Regulations

are held to be prospective in nature.

(v) Petitioners have taken admission for the academic

year 2019-20 and therefore, the petitioners are bound by the

amended 2019 Regulations.

(vi)Though the petitioners have pleaded discrimination

and have also alleged arbitrariness, no materials are placed on

record to indicate the same. Nothing has been brought to my

notice which prohibits the promulgation of impugned

Ordinance. The petitioners have failed to establish that the

respondent-University has indulged in adopting unfair means

while promulgating the Ordinance.

(vii)There is no material to indicate that the magnitude

of the impugned action under new Ordinance is so

disproportionate that erratic valuation would go unnoticed.

There is absolutely no material on record indicating any

glaring aberrations which would warrant judicial review at the

hands of this Court.

36. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, the writ

petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly, stand dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-