Karnataka High Court
Mr. Aravinda J M vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 11 January, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
WP No. 23789 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.23789 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ARAVINDA J.M.,
S/O SRI J.M. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT MUBARAK MOHALLA,
ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD,
MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA - 577 535.
2. MRS. LAHARI G.H.,
D/O MR. HANUMANTHA REDDY G.,
AGED 22 YEARS,
R/AT RENUKA NILAYA,
OLD BANGALORE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501,
REG. NO.20M6307,
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS AT
BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA.
3. MS. AMRUTHA SHASTRI,
D/O MR. VEERESH,
AGED 21 YEARS,
R/AT ANUSHA NAGAR,
Digitally signed by OPP. NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
GURURAJ D RAICHUR - 584 101.
Location: High REG. NO. 20M5387
Court of Karnataka PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS AT
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE, RAICHUR.
4. MS. PARVATI S. SULLAD,
D/O MR. SHANMUKHAPPA G. SULLAD,
AGED 23 YEARS,
R/AT S.G. SULLAD GANESH PETH,
BINDARGI ONI, HUBBALLI - 580 020.
PURSUING FINAL YEAR MBBS AT
S NIJILINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
BAGALKOTE - 587 102.
5. MR. VEDANT GARG,
S/O MR. MANISH GARG,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
WP No. 23789 of 2023
AGED 21 YEARS,
R/AT B301 MILLENNIUM HBABITAT,
ITPL MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
REG NO. 20M7228.
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS AT
VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE AND RESEARCH COLLEGE.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PARASHURAM A.L.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR - 8,
DWARKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) QUASH ORDINANCE /
NOTIFICATION GOVERNING EVALUATION OF ALL UNDER GRADUATE
HEALTH SCIENCE COURSES THEORY NO.RGU/AUTH/24TH/COM/
SYND/04/2022-23 ANSWER SCRIPTS DATED 05/09/2022
PROMULGATED BY THE R1 (ANNEXURE-A). (B) DIRECTION TO R1
UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL VALUATION OF THE SUBJECTS
IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN DECLARED UNSUCCESSFUL
IN MBBS (RS4) EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2023 IN CASES WHERE THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE MARKS AWARDED BY THE TWO VALUATORS IS
MORE THAN 15 PERCENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE DATED
15/06/2012 NO.RGU/AUTH/24TH/COM/ SYND/04/2022-23 IN A TIME
BOUND MANNER (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
WP No. 23789 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ, order or direction to quash
Ordinance/Notification Governing Evaluation
of all under graduate Health Science Courses
Theory No.RGU / AUTH / 24TH / COM / SYND /
04 / 2022-23 answer scripts dated 05.09.2022
promulgated by the respondent
no.1(Annexure-A);
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to
respondent no.1 - University to conduct
additional valuation of the subjects in which
the petitioners have been declared
unsuccessful in MBBS (RS4) Examination of
May, 2023 in cases where the difference in the
marks awarded by two valuators is more than
15% in accordance with ordinance No.AUTH /
III & V Valuation / 208 / 2012-13 dated
15.06.2012 in a time bound manner
(Annexure-F) and etc.
2. Sri Parashuram A.L., learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners are MBBS Students enrolled in different
Colleges affiliated to respondent no.1 - University as follows:
Subjects
Name College Year Subjects Appeared
Unsuccessful
SSIMS&RC (Shamnur
Shivshankarappa
a) Forensic Medicine &
Aravinda J.M Institute of Medical 4th Ophthalmology
Toxiclology
Science & Research
Centre) Davanagere
Basaveshwara a) Pathology
Lahari G.H Medical College & 3rd b) Pharmacology Microbiology
Hospital, Chitradurga c) Microbiology
Navodaya Medical a) Pathology
Amrutha
College, Raichur 3rd b) Pharmacology Microbiology
Shastri
c) Microbiology
S. Nijilingappa a) Forensic Medicine &
Medical College and Toxicology
Parvati S Research Centre, b) Opthalmology
4th Opthalmology
Sullad Bagalkote c) Otorhinolaryngology
d) Community Medicine
Vydehi Institute of a) Pathology Pathology
Vedant Garg Medical Science and 3rd b) Pharmacology Pharmacology
Research College c) Microbiology Microbiology
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
3. It was submitted that respondent no.1 - University
issued notification dated 27.03.2023 at Annexure-B for
conducting 2nd and 3rd Professional MBBS (RS4-CBME Batch)
Theory Supplementary Examination during April - May, 2023. In
terms of notification, examinations were conducted and
petitioners appeared for theory exam. Thereafter, when results
were declared, petitioners noted that they were unsuccessful in
one or more subjects by small margin, apparently due to erratic
evaluation, which in difference of marks awarded between two
evaluators in some cases as high of 30%, petitioners sought for
revaluation of their answer scripts. Same was refused by
respondent no.1-University by relying note
"Ordinance/Notification Governing Central Assessment
Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all Under
Graduate Health Science Courses of University" at Annexure-A
dated 05.09.2022.
4. It was submitted that this Court in W.P.no.231/2021
and connected matters disposed of on 11.02.2021, while
considering validity of "Amendment to Ordinance Governing
Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme)"
dated 13.10.2020 had observed as follows:
"27. The provision for having a third valuation in
cases of Double Valuation Method and having a
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
fifth valuation in cases of Four Valuation Method
is a well thought of safety measure. The very fact
that difference of more than 15% indicated erratic
valuation and therefore, the need for sending
such answer scripts for another evaluation has a
moderating effect and provided solace to students
who were awarded marks which had a huge gulf.
Therefore, prima facie, the University could not
have done away with the safety measure.
28. Several instances have been brought to the
notice of this Court in the writ petitions
magnifying the need for a fifth valuation. One of
the petitioners has been awarded - 20, 56, 35, 53
by the four valuators. The lowest being 20 and
the highest being 56, the student has every
reason to cry hoarse that the valuation is erratic
in nature. If an average is taken in this case, the
student gets 41 and therefore, he fails. On the
other hand, if the paper is sent for fifth valuation,
in terms of the Ordinance governing PG students,
the least of the marks out of the five evaluators
should be left out of consideration and the
average of the other four should be taken into
consideration. In such scenario, the student has a
better chance of succeeding. The learned
Counsels for the petitioners have pointed out to
the fact that all the petitioners are more or less in
the same situation."
5. It was submitted that this Court had taken view that
provisions for third valuation and fifth valuation respectively
provided a safety measure to petitioners in case of difference in
marks awarded between two valuation and four valuation in more
than 15%.
6. It was submitted that this Court had taken view that
withdrawal of such safety measure by University was not
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
justified. It was submitted that in impugned regulations,
respondent had done away with provision for third valuation and
therefore same fell foul of ratio laid down in above mentioned
judgment and on above grounds sought for allowing writ petition.
7. On other hand, Smt.Mamata Gururao Kulkarni,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri N. Khetty,
learned counsel for appearing for respondent no.2 sought to
oppose writ petition. It was submitted that validity of ordinance
dated 05.09.2022 was already upheld by this Court in
W.P.no.11688/2023 and connected petitions, disposed of on
13.10.2023, wherein this Court had taken note of order passed in
W.P.no.231/2021 and connected petitions. It was submitted that
in view of upholding of regulations, petitioners were not entitled
for maintaining challenge against regulations. It was submitted
that method of valuation provided under regulations did not
amount of withdrawal of provisions for third valuation and unlike
in earlier where procedure was for averaging marks obtained in
evaluations, present system provided for consideration of highest
among two valuations and same could not said to be prejudicial.
System had an in-built safety measure of having answer scripts
evaluated by two valuators to mitigate possibility of erratic
evaluation and consideration of highest marks amongst two
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
valuations, sufficiently protected interest of examinees and
therefore, sought for dismissal of writ petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ
petition record.
9. From above submission, it is seen that petitioners are
seeking to challenge validity of Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 on
ground that Ordinance has done away with provisions of third
evaluation thereby affecting petitioners' examinees. Perusal of
order passed in W.P.no.231/2021 would reveal that by taking
note of fact that earlier system of evaluations provided for
averaging marks between two multiple evaluators it would
adversely affect examinees and this Court had found fault guilty
with amendment of Ordinance. Present Ordinance in fact is done
away with system and as adopted method whereby petitioners'
answers scripts were evaluated by two valuators and highest
marks obtained among two evaluators which is considered for
purposes of declaration of results. This system had in-built
protection of second evaluation as safety measure and
consideration of highest marks between two evaluators would
done away with possibility of students suffering any prejudice.
This Court having upheld regulations on said reasoning,
NC: 2024:KHC:1553
petitioners' challenge on above mentioned ground could not be
tenable. Hence, writ petition stand dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main petition, pending application
are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
