Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baba Farid University Of Health ... vs Dr. Bikramjit Singh on 24 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055612-DB
2024:PHHC:055612-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.119
LPA-995-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and others
....Appellants
Versus
Dr. Bikramjit Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for the appellants.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 01.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the
respondent's writ petition filed by him to quash the action of the appellant-
University of adopting the e-evaluation system for evaluating the Post
Graduate MD/MS Examinations with a further prayer for issuance of
directions to the appellant-University to manually examine the respondent's
answer sheets.
2. The respondent was admitted to the Post Graduate M.D. (General
Medicine) Course in the appellant-University. In May/June 2018, he appeared
in the final examinations of the said course. The appellant-University
evaluated the respondent's answer sheets by the recently introduced e-
evaluation system. The respondent was declared to have passed in his theory
papers but fail in the practical examinations. The respondent re-appeared in
November/December 2018. This time too he was evaluated by the e-evaluation
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055612-DB
LPA-995-2024 (O&M) [2] 2024:PHHC:055612-DB
system and declared to have passed his practical examinations but fail in the
theory papers. Aggrieved by the checking of his answer sheets through the e-
evaluation system, the respondent approached this Court through filing of a
writ petition. The primary ground taken by the respondent was that the
appellant-University had introduced the system of e-evaluation of answer
sheets without giving proper training to its examiners and therefore, sought
issuance of directions to re-evaluate his answer sheets by resorting to manual
checking. In support of his claim, the respondent relied upon the judgment of
this Court dated 15.11.2017 passed in CWP-14439-2017 - Dr. Avinash
Asaram Ghatge vs. Medical Council of India and others and dated
15.03.2017 in CWP-18429-2016 - Dr. Raj Bahadur Singh and others vs.
Medical Council of India and others.
3. On being put to notice, the appellant-University filed a response
through which it sought issuance of orders to dispose of the respondent's
petition having been rendered infructuous as according to the appellant-
University, while the respondent's petition was pending before this Court, in
May/June 2019 he had again appeared and passed the final examinations of his
Post Graduate Course. The respondent rebutted the appellant-University's
stand by submitting that even if the respondent had appeared and passed the
final examinations of his Post Graduate Course in May/June 2019 he would
still be entitled to press for getting his answer sheets of the earlier
examinations re-examined because if he is declared to have passed his
examinations in the year 2018 he would be considered to have passed his Post
Graduate Course in the first attempt which fact would have a bearing on his
career.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055612-DB
LPA-995-2024 (O&M) [3] 2024:PHHC:055612-DB
4. After considering the afore rival submissions, the learned Single
Judge was of the view that the case of the respondent was fully covered in his
favour by the judgment of this Court in Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's case
(supra) and therefore, allowed the respondent's writ petition in the same terms.
Such direction was issued after the appellant-University had not been able to
distinguish the applicability of Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's case (supra) to
the respondent's case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has been heard and
with his able assistance the record of the case has also been perused.
6. Through his petition the respondent had questioned the evaluation
of his answer sheets by the appellant-University by resorting to the e-
evaluation method primarily on the ground that before adopting such method
the appellant-University had not trained its examiners. On being put to notice
of the respondent's petition the appellant-University appeared before the
learned Single Judge and filed its response through which the only stand taken
by it was that since the respondent had appeared in a subsequent examination
and passed his MD/MS Course, his petition had been rendered infructuous. In
rebuttal, the respondent submitted that in spite of having passed his MD/MS
Course in a subsequent examination, he would still be entitled to press for
getting his answer sheets of the earlier examinations re-examined manually
because if he is declared to have passed his examinations in the earlier year, he
would be considered to have passed his MD/MS Course in the first attempt
which would favourably affect his academic career.
7. The respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's case (supra) the relevant portion of which
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055612-DB
LPA-995-2024 (O&M) [4] 2024:PHHC:055612-DB
reads as follows:-
".....However, as regards the 2nd grievance,
he would not press the same but the fact remains
that the last grievance which was accepted by this
Court in the aforesaid case applies to the
petitioner. His prayer is that all the papers which
were attempted by him be got manually evaluated.
Counsel for the respondents are not in a
position to deny that the last grievance which was
raised in CWP No.18429 of 2016 (supra) applies
to this case also in so much as the papers were
evaluated by e-evaluation and some papers
containing 10 answers were evaluated within
seconds. Counsel for respondent No.3, however,
points out that the petitioner has given subsequent
exams also and, therefore, it does not lie in his
mouth to claim that his original papers be
evaluated again. Counsel for the petitioner has
argued and rightly so that the subsequent exams
were taken without prejudice to the right of the
present petitioner.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and
respondent No.3-University is directed to get all
the papers attempted by the petitioner evaluated
manually and fresh result of the petitioner be
declared within two months from the receipt of a
certified copy of this order." (emphasis supplied)
8. The judgment of this Court in Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's
case (supra) was not challenged by the appellant-University. The same
attained finality. The directions given therein fully apply in the case of the
respondent not even an attempt has been made on behalf of learned counsel for
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055612-DB
LPA-995-2024 (O&M) [5] 2024:PHHC:055612-DB
the appellant-University to distinguish Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's case
(supra). Therefore, the learned Single Judge is found to have rightly follow
Dr. Avinash Asaram Ghatge's case (supra) to allow the respondent's petition.
9. Dismissed.
10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
April 24, 2024
Jyoti 1
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
