Yashwin Bhagchandani vs Mp. Medical Science University
2021 Latest Caselaw 1581 MP

                                                     W.P. No.6441/2001

                                 (1)



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
                AT JABALPUR


Case No.                           W.P. No.6441/2021
Parties Name                  Yashwini Bhagchandani
                                         vs.
                           M.P. Medical Science University
Date of Order              27/04/2021
Bench Constituted          DivisionBench:
                           Justice Prakash Shrivastava
                           Justice Virender Singh
Judgment delivered by      Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for       Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for       Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned
parties                    counsel for the petitioner.

                           Shri V.C. Choudhary, learned
                           counsel for the respondents.
Law laid down                               -
Significant paragraph                       -
numbers

                            ORDER

27.04.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent University to revaluate/recheck/re-scrutinize the petitioner's answer-sheets with respect to the subject of Pathology and Forensic Medical Science.

The case of the petitioner is that he is pursuing his MBBS course in respondent Chirayu Medical College & Hospital, Bhopal wherein he was admitted in First Year in 2017-18. In the Second Year Examination, the petitioner could not clear in the subjects of 'Pathology' and 'Forensic Medical Science'. In the Pathology subject, the petitioner could obtain 42 marks whereas the minimum passing marks were 47.5 and in Forensic Medical Science he had obtained 24 marks whereas the W.P. No.6441/2001

minimum passing marks was 25 marks. The petitioner had applied for revaluation/rechecking/scrutiny but his mark did not change. Further grievance of the petitioner is that after obtaining the photocopy of the answer-sheet he has found that there was no marking Question-Answer wise to any of the question and there was no entry or recording of mark by the examiners/paper checkers. Therefore, the petitioner had applied for another round of revaluation/rechecking/scrutiny but the same was not considered, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that proper evaluation of the marks of the petitioner was done and on the petitioner's request, the revaluation has also been done, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of clause 50 of the Ordinance No.6/2014, verification of answer-sheet is permissible and in terms of Regulation 60, moderation is provided. He further submits that in the case of the petitioner, no moderation has been done and that the amendment in the Ordinance No.6/2014 has been carried out without publishing it in the notification, therefore, the same is not sustainable. He has also submitted that no evaluation of the answer-sheet has been done at all as the photocopy of the answer-sheets supplied to the petitioner do not contain any mark or marking.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition by pointing out that due evaluation of the answer-sheet was done at the initial stage and thereafter the revaluation has W.P. No.6441/2001

also been done and that the amendment in the Ordinance is not under challenge in the petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The first grievance raised by the petitioner is that his answer-sheets have not been evaluated at all as they do not contain any marking by the evaluator nor do they mention the marks awarded Question-Answer wise. To ascertain the correct position, this Court on 22nd of March, 2021 had directed the counsel for the respondent to keep some competent person from the respondent-University present before the Court to appraise about the manner of evaluation of the answer-sheet. On 24.3.2021, the Examination Counsellor along with the Assistant Registrar of the University were present and they had disclosed that the answer-sheets were digitally scanned and sent to the valuer and valuation of the digitally scanned answer-sheet was done by the valuer; and the marks are also awarded digitally by the valuer, therefore, the original hard copies of and answer- sheets do not contain any evaluation or marking by the valuer nor do they contain the marks awarded answer-wise therein. It was pointed out that the record of the marks awarded in respect of each answer by the valuer is kept separately. It was also disclosed that 100% revaluation of the answer-sheets of the petitioner was done; therefore, moderation was not necessary. This clearly reveals that the grievance of the petitioner that his answer-sheets have not been evaluated is unfounded.

7. So far as the plea relating to revaluation is concerned, it is noticed that the Ordinance No.6/2014 namely; Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalaya (Regarding Conduct of W.P. No.6441/2001

Examination) Ordinance, 2014 has been framed under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Regulation 50 thereof provides for scrutinization of the answer-sheet for verification of correctness of total marks recorded and for verification that all the answers have been assessed. Regulation 53 of the Act provides for making of the application for verification by the examinee. Regulation 60 of the Act provides for moderation at the level of Undergraduate Examination in certain circumstances. Regulation 55 of the Act provides for the spot evaluation of the answer-sheet at one or more centre as per the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. The Additional Reply filed by the respondents reveals that instead of the spot valuation, an amendment was done to provide for retotalling/revaluation by keeping the result of revaluation as final. This decision was accepted by the Executive Council and a notice inviting application for retotaling and revaluation was issued. The petitioner had filed the application (Annexure R/5) for revaluation of his answer-sheet in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Pathology I & II. The petitioner's application was duly acted upon and revaluation of the answer-sheets of these subjects was done by the expert. In the revaluation, the petitioner has not succeeded in getting the minimum passing marks. Having availed the benefit of the amended provision, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the amendment. Even otherwise, no relief in the writ petition as against the amendment has been prayed. The petitioner's answer-sheets in the concerned subjects have already been revaluated by the subject expert and no arbitrariness or illegality in this regard is found nor the petitioner could make out a case for attracting the provision of moderation at this stage. Hence we are of the W.P. No.6441/2001

opinion that no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out.

8. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                    (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)                      (VIRENDER SINGH)
                                          JUDGE                                     JUDGE

  YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2021.04.27 12:17:55 +05'30'