Karnataka High Court
Dr Gorad Kedar Pandurgang vs Rajiv Gandh University on 22 November, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN.M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
:AND:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.42738/2013 (EDN-MED-ADM)*
BETWEEN:
DR GORAD KEDAR PANDURANG
S/O GORAD PANDURANG NIVRITTI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT 379/1, FLAT NO.1
VARDAN PALACE APARTMENT
NEAR SPHURTI CHOWK
GOVERNMENT COLONY
VISHRAMBAG, SANGLI-416415
MAHARASHTRA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK S SARANG MATH, ADV. )
AND:
1.RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2.DR HARISH KUMAR H
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN)
MAJOR, DEPARTMENT OF SURGICAL
* Correction carried out vide chamber order dated 10.12.2013
2
ONCOLOGY, KIDWAI MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY
DR D H MARIGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
3.DR KIRAN SHANKAR
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN)
AGED MAJOR
DEPARTMENT OF SURGICAL
ONCOLOGY, KIDWAI MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY
DR D H MARIGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
4.KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
OF ONCOLOGY
DR D H MARIGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. POST GRADUATE SUPER SPECIALITY
ENTRANCE TEST COMMITTEE
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041
(REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1 & R5)
*****
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ATICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO GRANT THE
PETITIONER HIS ENTITLEMENT OF ONE ADDITIONAL
MARK UNDER VIVA VOCE UNDER THE HEAD
"PUBLICATION INCLUDING CASE REPORT IN
INTERNATIONAL / NATIONAL [INDEX] / CASE REPORT -
JOURNAL EITEHR AS 1ST OR 2ND AUTHOR" AS PER ANN-
F & G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAN M. SHANTANA GOUDAR, J.
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent about its conducting the Entrance Test on 16.6.2003 for admission to Post Graduate Super Specialty courses for the academic year 2013-14, the petitioner also applied for the same. On 22.6.2013 written examination of the said Post Graduate Super Specialty entrance test was conducted. On 30.6.2013, the written examination rank list was displayed on the website by respondent No.1. Annexure-E is the Provisional merit list (General Candidates) for M.Ch. Surgical Oncology and the same was prepared based on the written test. The name of the 4 petitioner finds place at Sl. No.12, he got 80 marks in the written examination. The interview/viva voce was conducted for M.Ch. Surgical Oncology candidates and Case Report/Publications, if any, were to be submitted on 18.7.2013. Subsequently, the first respondent published the list containing all the names of the candidates who have been finally selected and the names of the waiting list candidates, wherein the name of the petitioner was found at Sl. No.8 and he was wait listed candidate No.3. Since, the total candidates to be selected for M.Ch. Surgical Oncology were 5 seats in general quota. Since the petitioner is also from general quota, his name was also published in the list relating to general quota and as aforementioned his name was found at Sl. No.8 (i.e. waiting list No.3). The petitioner is aggrieved by his non selection to the said seat. According to him, the allotment of marks by the first respondent under the head of "publication including case report in International/National (Index)/Case Report - Journal either as 1st or 2nd Author" is erroneous. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been awarded two full marks 5 ear marked under the said heading. On the other hand, the petitioner awarded only one mark under the said heading.
It is relevant to note that two of the selected candidates namely (1) Bharat G. and (2) Sunil Navalgund (selected candidate Nos.3 & 4) have not joined the course in the 4th respondent - Institute but have joined some other Institutes. Thus, the wait listed candidates No.1 & 2 i.e. Harish Kumar H and Gourav Khandelwal, who are respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein have got the seat in general merit quota, thereby the petitioner has remained as wait listed candidate No.1.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has published a case report in a Journal called Minimally Invasive Surgery, a paper published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation on the subject "Laparoscopic Removal of Pelvic Hydatid Cysts in Young Female: A Case report as per Annexure-F. He further submits that he has published one more Article as per Annexure-G on the subject "Modified Bassini's repair: Our 6 experience in a rural hospital setup". Thus, according to him, two papers are published in International/National journals as required and therefore, two marks which were to be awarded compulsorily under the said head ought to have been awarded in favour of the petitioner; on the contrary, the respondent No.1 has wrongly awarded only one mark instead of two marks in the matter of publication of paper. In other words, if two marks are awarded to the petitioner, as mentioned supra, he would have secured more marks than the respondents 2 & 3 and consequently, he would have got seat in M.Ch Surgical Oncology in the 4th respondent Institution.
3. Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the first and fifth respondent submits that the second case report of the publication i.e. "Modified Bassini's repair: Our experience in a rural hospital setup" which was proposed to be published, in fact was not published as on the relevant date and therefore, the same has not been taken into consideration by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of allotment of marks. The petitioner 7 has published only one case report as per Annexure-F in a Journal by name 'Minimally Invasive Surgery'. He further draws the attention of the court that respondents 2 & 3 are not allotted any marks under the head of publication in as much as they have not published in any International or National journals. Thus, the respondent No.1, based on facts has awarded one mark to the petitioner. On the other hand, the selected candidate No.1 namely Jaiprakash Gurawalia is allotted two marks for publication of case report inasmuch as he has published more than one case report. Thus, according to him, the decision is taken by the first respondent on objective and not on subjective basis.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3 also submitted on par with the submissions made by Sri N.K. Ramesh. He further submits that respondent Nos.2 & 3, though got seats in some other Medical Colleges/Institutions, he did not choose to opt such seats in such other Medical Colleges only for joining 4th respondent Institute. In case if any order adverse to them is 8 passed, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 would put to irreparable loss and injury.
3. At the out set, we mention that the selection process is already over and all the selected candidates are already attending classes after obtaining admission from 1.10.2013.
The allotment of marks is done by the experts in the field. This Court will not sit as an appellate authority in the matter of allotment of marks. There is no prescribed rule as to how the marks should be allotted, ultimately, it is for the experts in the field who will choose to allot marks based on merit. In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, we find that the first respondent has proceeded objectively. From the list of marks allotted in favour of each of the candidates we find that no marks are allotted in favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the matter of publication of case reports inasmuch as they have not published any case report. On the other hand, the petitioner is allotted one mark. The first selected candidate namely Jaiprakash is allotted two marks. In that context, Sri Ramesh, learned counsel may be 9 justified in arguing that since Jaiprakash has published more than one article in International or National Journals, he is allotted two marks. Therefore, we find that respondent No.1 has not proceeded to allot marks in arbitrary manner. On the other hand, the performance of each of the candidates is assessed objectively. More over, in such matters, the courts will not interfere as the court should leave such matters to the experts in the field. Hence, no interference is called for.
Petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL