Karnataka High Court
Sri Abhilash V J vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 25 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.21063 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.21085 OF 2022, 21128 OF 2022,
21152 OF 2022, 21159 OF 2022, 21164 OF 2022,
21596 OF 2022 AND 21601 OF 2022
IN WP NO.21063 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI ABHILASH V J
S/O V J JAMES
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT 1825/14B ABHINIVAS
KIRIJAJI ROAD
HUNSUR,
MYSURU-571105.
STUDENT AT
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
SHIVAMOGGA,
KARNATAKA-577202
REG NO.15M0702.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR
JAYANAGAR
2
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'SURGERY' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER OF
THE EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2022, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, AS IT IS IN VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES TO
CONDUCT OF CLINICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR MBBS
EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21085 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI THISHON KUMAR
S/O THILAK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT SWAMIYARMADAM
PILAVILAI
KATTATURA POST
TAMILNADU-629178
STUDENT AT
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577 202
REG.NO.15M0837
.....PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K S, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGAR
3
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY' IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF
AUGUST 2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS IT IS IN VIOLATION
OF GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT OF CLINICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR MBBS EXAMINATIONS AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF
INDIA REGULATIONS ON GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION,
1997; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21128 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BALLA CHANDRAHAS
S/O SRI BALLA JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 2-245-D-4-3-O-7
KURAVANKA, MADANAPALLE,
CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517325
REG NO.13M8362
2. KUM. NAZRIYA P
D/O MOHAMMED ALI P
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT KODUVAPRAMBIL, KUTTUR
KUTTUR NORTH, VENGARA
ABDU RAHIMANNAGAR, MALLAPURAM
KERALA-676 305
REG NO.167M0594
3. KUM. CHAITHRA R
D/O T RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4
R/AT NO.21, SAHAKARI ROAD
J H PATEL EXTENSION
SOMINAKOPPA ROAD
VINOBHANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
REG NO.13M8348
ALL PETITIONERS ARE STUDENTS OF
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577 202.
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K S, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'PEDIATRICS' AT ANNEXURE-A AND
'OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY' AT ANNEXURE A1 IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.1; PRACTICAL ANSWER
BOOKLET IN THE SUBJECT 'PEDIATRICS' IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A2 AND PRACTICAL
ANSWER BOOKLET IN THE SUBJECT 'OBSTETRICS AND
GYNAECOLOGY' IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.3 AT
ANNEXURE-3 OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST 2022; AND
ETC.
5
IN WP NO.21152 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PANDIDURAI D
S/O DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT 1/179, SATTUKOTTAI
SELLIYAMPATTI, DHARAMAPURI
TAMILNADU-636809
REG NO.14M8336.
2. CHAITANYA KRISHNA
S/O V MOTHILAL NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT 1-834/A, KOTHAPETA
PENUKONDA, ANANTHPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515110
REG.NO.12M8390
BOTH STUDENTS AT
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES, SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA-577 202.
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
6
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'SURGERY' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER
NO.1 AND THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN THE
SUBJECT 'PEDIATRICS' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER
NO.2 OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2022,
VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ANNEXURE-A1 RESPECTIVELY, AS IT
IS IN VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT OF CLINICAL
EXAMINATIONS FOR MBBS EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21159 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESHKUMAR N
S/O NATARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT 5/683-4, BEHIND
CGHS SCHOOL, PALACODE
DHARAMPURI
TAMILNADU-636808.
STUDENT AT
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES, SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577 202
REG.NO.15M0753
.....PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
7
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'SURGERY' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER
OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2022,
DATED 27.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS IT IS IN
VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT OF CLINICAL
EXAMINATIONS FOR MBBS EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21164 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGAPPA
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT 1/35, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
YADGIR-585 202.
STUDENT AT
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
SHIVAMOGGA, KARNATAKA-577202
REG NO.16M0590.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K S, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
8
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'SURGERY' AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE
PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN THE SUBJECT 'PEDIATRICS'
AT ANNEXURE A1 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER OF THE
EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST- 2022, AS IT IS IN VIOLATION
OF GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT OF CLINICAL EXAMINATIONS
FOR MBBS EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21596 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI M ANIL REDDY
S/O VENKAT REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT 4-4 CHINTALPET
GADWAL DISTRICT
TELANGANA-509 125.
STUDENT AT
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR, KARNATAKA-584 103.
REG.NO.16M3689
.....PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATEEK CHANDRA MOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
9
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN
THE SUBJECT 'OBG' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER OF THE
EXAMINATIONS OF AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2022, VIDE
ANNEXURE A, AS IT IS IN VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES TO
CONDUCT OF CLINICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR MBBS
EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.21601 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI REVANTH KUMAR REDDY
S/O RAGHURAMI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT 301, ESWARA SAI TOWERS
PRAKASH NAGAR, NARASARAOPET
ANDHRA PRADESH-522 601
REG NO.17M4113
2. KUM. JAYAMPU HANVY
D/O J V SUBBAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT G6, KNR ROYAL NIVAS
NAVODAYA COLONY
TADEPALLE,
GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 501
ANDHRA PRADESH
REG NO.17M4237
BOTH STUDENTS AT
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR
KARNATAKA-577 202.
.....PETITIONERS
10
(BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K S, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
4TH "T" BLOCK,
EAST PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY,SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
VALUATION OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN THE
SUBJECT 'OBG' IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND THE
PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOKLET IN THE SUBJECT 'OBG' IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ANNEXURE-A1 RESPECTIVELY, AS IT IS IN VIOLATION OF
GUIDELINES TO CONDUCT OF CLINICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR
MBBS EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since, questions involved in all these petitions are similar, all these matters are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of this by common order.
2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are students of MBBS and failed in one of the disciplines/subject in the examinations held during August-September, 2022. It is the 11 case of the petitioners that, petitioners failed in practical examinations and are now pursuing final year MBBS. It is the grievance of petitioners that individual remarks has not been made by the examiners in the viva-voce answer book which is mandatory as per the guidelines issued by the respondent- University dated 20th October, 2020 (Annexure-D). Hence, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. In Writ petitions No.21085 of 2022 and 21128 of 2022 petitioners have urged additional ground that the action of the respondent-University is contrary to Clause 13(9) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Regulations"), whereby the Head of the Department of the Subjects have been appointed as the Examiners and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
4. On service of notice, the respondent-University entered appearance and filed detailed objections contending that the Circular dated 20th October, 2020 (Annexure-D) has been withdrawn as per Circular dated 27th July, 2022 (Annexure-R3) and therefore, contended that writ petitions does not survive for consideration.
12
5. Heard Sri Prateek Chandramouli and Ms. Vidyashree K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Farah Fatima, learned counsel for respondent-University.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Guidelines (Annexure-D) has to be strictly adhered to by the respondent-University, whereby if the candidate secures less than 50% of total marks prescribed for a practical examination, it is mandatory to enter remarks in the viva-voce answer-book of the candidate. In these writ petitions, petitioners have scored less than 50% of total marks and in their answer-books no remarks have been made, which is contrary to Guidelines produced at Annexure- D. In this regard, Sri Prateek Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 decided on 22nd December, 2020 and argued that in an identical situation, this Court directed the respondent-University to re-conduct the practical examination within the time frame and to announce the results and therefore, he contended that the said benefit be extended to 13 the petitioners herein. He also referred to the judgments annexed to writ petitions.
7. Insofar as petitioners in Writ Petition No.21085 and 21128 of 2022 is concerned, Ms. Vidyashree K.S. learned counsel, invited the attention of the Court to sub-clauses (2) and (9) of Clause 13 of the MCI Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and argued that the Head of the Department was Examiner in the subject examination, despite the HODs are not to be appointed as Examiners in terms of the aforesaid Regulation and therefore, she contended that the action of the respondent-University requires to be interfered with in the light of the judgments referred to in the writ petitions.
8. Per contra, Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University contended that there is no Regulation or Ordinance with regard to conduct of clinical examination for MBBS, however, the respondent-University promulgated guidelines to conduct such examination as per Annexure-D and in this regard, learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of the Court to Guidelines dated 20th October, 2020 (Annexure-D) and argued that the 14 said guidelines have been made as an onetime measure due to Pandemic situation prevailing then and the said Regulation was withdrawn by the respondent-University on 27th July, 2022 (Annexure-R3) and in the absence of the said guidelines, petitioners do not have any say in the matter. He further contended that the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rendered prior to withdrawal of Circular dated 20th October, 2020, and therefore, sought for dismissal of writ petitions. Insofar as the grounds urged in other petitions relating to not following the Guidelines of MCI is concerned, learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of the Court to Clause B of Advisory dated 04th August, 2020 by the MCI (Annexure-R1) and submitted that the action taken by the respondent-University to issue freezed marks sheet during the examination and signed by all the examiners is in accordance with the MCI Regulations, and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the careful examination of Guidelines dated 20th October, 2020 (Annexure-D), whereby it 15 is categorically stated that the said guidelines has been issued as an onetime measure during pandemic situation extending benefits to enter remarks in the answer-script booklet of the candidate and thereafter, it has been withdrawn on 27th July, 2022 (Annexure-R3) and therefore, learned Senior Counsel was justified in arguing that the judgments referred to by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As regards, the contention raised by the petitioners with regard to not complying with MCI Regulations is concerned, Clause 13(2) and (9) provides as under:
"13. APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS:
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) There shall be at least four examiners for 100 students, out of whom not less than 50% must be external examiners. Of the four examiners, the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and co-ordinator of the whole examination programme so that uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates is maintained. Where candidates appearing are more than 100, one additional examiner, for every examiner additional 50 or part thereof candidates appearing, be appointed.
(3) to (8) xxx xxx xxx 16 (9) Except Head of the department of subject concerned in a college-institution, all other with the rank of reader or equivalent and above with requisite qualifications and experience shall be appointed internal examiners by rotation in their subjects;
provided that where there are no posts of readers, then an Assistant Professor of 5 years standing as Assistant Professor may be considered for appointment as examiner."
10. On careful examination of the aforementioned clause, the same would indicate that for 100 students, there shall be four examiners, wherein two examiners from the Institution and two examiners from outside. Senior most internal examiner will be the Chairman and Co-ordinator of whole examination and if the candidates appearing are more than 100, one additional Examiner for every additional 50 candidates or part, be appointed. In every such examination, in the absence of HODs of particular subject in an Institution, examiner with the rank of Reader or equivalent cadre shall be appointed as internal examiners and when there is no post of Readers, Assistant Professor with five years of experience be appointed as Examiner. In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable ground as urged by the learned counsel 17 appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits.
SD/-
JUDGE lnn