Karnataka High Court
Harshith Raghavendra. P vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42169
WP No. 10741 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 10741 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
HARSHITH RAGHAVENDRA. P,
S/O SRI. PADMANABHACHAR N.N,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O KOSTUBHA NILAYA, NEAR SFS SCHOOL,
VENKATESHWARA EXTENSION,
SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.
STUDENT OF 1ST YEAR MMBS COURSE
(REG NO. 22M5083), SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NH - 13,
PURLE, H.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
Digitally
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
signed by
PRAKASH N BENGALURU - 560 041,
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR.
HIGH 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
3. SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
NH - 13, PURLE, H.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42169
WP No. 10741 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
VALUATION OF THE PETITIONERS ANSWER SCRIPT IN THEORY
PAPER ANATOMY I (Q P CODE 1020) AND ANATOMY -II (Q P CODE
1021) BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1
AS ARBITRARY, IMPROPER, UNFAIR AND CONTRARY TO REGULATION
13(2) OF THE REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND HENCE VITIATED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) Declare that the valuation of the petitioner's answer
script in Theory paper Anatomy -I [QP Code 1020]
and Anatomy -II [Q P Code 1021] by the
Respondent University vide Annexure E and Eas
arbitrary, improper, unfair and contrary to
regulation 13(2) of the Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education and hence vitiated.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the valuation of the
petitioner's answer script in Theory paper Anatomy
-I [Q P Code 1020] and Anatomy -II [Q P Code
1021] as reflected in the valuation slips [vide
Annexure E and E1].
(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2
to conduct fresh valuation of the petitioners answer
script in Anatomy -I [Q P Code 1020] and Anatomy
-II [QP Code 1021] vide Annexure F and F1
NC: 2024:KHC:42169
following all the regulations as prescribed under the
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
(d) Order costs; and such other and further reliefs as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of
justice
(e) Issue such other writ, order or direction as may be
necessary in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner was admitted to respondent No.3
institution for the MBBS Course in December 2022. Thus,
the petitioner is a RS4 student.
3. The petitioner contending that insofar as Anatomy-I and
II, the petitioner's answer script has been marked in an
improper manner by the two evaluators, there being a
difference of more than 15% between the valuation
carried out by the two evaluators, as such, it is contended
that the petitioner would be eligible for the valuation of
the answer script in Anatomy-I and II by two other
evaluators as provided for the RS3 batch and it is in that
background, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit
that firstly, the petitioner being governed by the RS4
guidelines, the ordinance not having been challenged, the
reliefs are not maintainable. The petitioner is governed
NC: 2024:KHC:42169
by the 2019-2023 regulations since the petitioner was
admitted in December 2022.
5. Her last submission is that this issue has already been
decided by this Court in a judgment dated 19.09.2024 in
W.P.No.8912/2024 and other connected matters
where even the challenge made to the ordinance has
been negated and the relief sought for by the petitioners
in those matters which are similar to those which have
been sought for in the present matter have been denied.
On that ground, she submits that the above petition is
also required to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents and perused papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been admitted
to the MBBS course in December 2022. Thus, the
petitioner belonging to the RS4 batch governed by 2019
regulations, so also the ordinance of 2022 being
applicable to the petitioner is also not in dispute. The
regulations of the year 2019 and the ordinance of the
year 2022 have restricted the evaluation to be made by
NC: 2024:KHC:42169
two evaluators in contradiction to four evaluations
provided for the RS3 batch. The petitioner belonging to
the RS4 batch cannot claim the same benefit as that
available for the RS3 batch as held by this Court in
W.P.No.8912/2024 and other connected matters.
8. In that view of the matter, the reliefs which have been
sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, the
petition stands dismissed in terms of the order dated
19.09.2024 in W.P.No.8912/2024 and other
connected matters.
9. In view of dismissal of the main petition, interlocutory
applications do not survive for consideration and the
same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
GJM
CT: BHK
