Karnataka High Court
Dr Prashanth P Mannur vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 5 October, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
_ 1 __
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05'"! DAY OF OCTOBER. 2009
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. PAfiL i:"--' "' '
W.P.Nos.25680~682/2QQ9[ED1\3¥EX}' O
w.P.Nos.25701--7o3/2»oo9'(EnN-Ex)"~ _ ' .
W.P.Nos.25798~800/20'{}Q(EDN-_I:}_2gj A ' " '
W.P.Nos.25949-95_;[_;.009!EI3N-EX)
W.P.Nos.26572-574/2oo9(EnN.Ex2
W.P.No.26648/ZOOQKEDDLEX}. _
w.P.Nos.247o1-710'/2oowDN-Ex)"
In w.P.Nos.25eso--s2/2069 O'
BETWEEN:
1. Dr. Prash_anth.'_P;--..Manm,:r_,.
S/0. P.V. L3/_VIat1_r1p1r, _ O
Aged
No. 1 7396/A; Main, .'4E'~.Bi0ck--.,
2"" Stage. Raja}1f1'agar, '
Bangaiorem 560 G110, O"
2. Dr. Nandaf _ .-
W/53 Dr, Smn1'Va__s K.
~ Aged about 34 years; 'V
' «8"1"}3' Olviain}. a1*1ashakarz'2"d Stage,
' ,Banga1.Qfe_%.560 070.
V 3. }V{'I'i.;';V:3_aV§1;1VE1I'1}L{8.I',
S/'-Q. A,*Ra,ngaswamy,
V Ageeiabsut 32 years,
' R/0. ffaddarayapet at <31 post ~-- 571 313,
.. Chanaarajanagar Tq. & Dist. PETITIONERS
'S1:i.;Iayakumar S.Pati1. Sr. Counsel for
Jayakurnar S.PatiI ,Assts., Acivs.}
AND:
I.
Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences,
431 'T' Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore -- 560 041,
Rep. by its Registrar.
Registrar--Evaluation
Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences,
43% ''1' Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore --- 560 041.
State of Karnataka, S.
Department of Family Welfare;.._ ' _
Medical Education, Vikasa VS3u,dha;*-,_
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veed hi, fBang"alorg" ~- A _
Rep. by its secretary." ' * ' 1 " Ii
Dr. B.R.Arnbe(il:ar Medicaigeolliege. 1 "
Kadugonda.na3'?a11i.
Bangalore; __
Rep. by its l_«.'-r'incip'al.. :
Kenipegowda In'stiiute.oi'''---- ' '
Medical Science; "
K. R. Road, V,V.lI'ura1'n,_
Bangalore -V 550',-004, "
Rep; by its Principal,
' .Dr. B.R.An13:)edkar Dental College
And "1~1p'spitg.1;--.
._ "LE/36; .Cli_ne._Road, Cooke Town,
'Bangalo1*e_¥56O 005,
Rep. by its Principal. RESPONDENTS
5 {By sr:.N;K§Ramesh, Adv. for R-1 & R-2; B;.l\/Ianohar, AGA for R-3;
, Sn'.'~KiDhiraj Kumar, Adv. for R--4; A' R45 & R-6 Sd., Unreptd.) =l==i=* .__3e.
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 8: 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Notification dated 09.02.2009 [as per AnneXure--G) in so far as it provides for averaging the middle four, as against Regulations of 14.7.2008, that has provided for average marks of th evaluations and etc..
In W.P.Nos.25701~703/2009 :
BETWEEN:
1.
Dr. Abhijit Yadav.
S/o. Dr. B.L.Yadav, Aged about 32 years, Dr. Mohan Kumar R, _ S / o. Late Sri. Ramac'h--ar1dra.. g Aged about 33 years, 0 " " Dr. Syed Mu.neer';. 0 s/o. Syed Ibrahim, '. Aged about 5_4:,yeta:s, K Petitionei's.Aaire ' V PG Courses 'B.R,Ambedkar
Medieal 'C_ollege,~ ,Kadu.gondanahalli, Bangalore -0 560 0405. _ PETITIONERS (By Srig.' M,R.Nai}:,_ Srf Coiinsel for
1. .~ . _M/ s_; 'iiJail§' 8z,_Naik Law...FirIn, Advs.) AF<ajiv Gan-dhsi University of Health Sciences, 4th Block, J ayanagar, Bangatore -- 560 041, " Rep. by its Registrar.
= V l3{egistrar~Evaluation F Rajiv Gandhi University of ' Health Sciences, 4"' 'T' Block, ,bt'.Sl;~~.fOuI' Jayanagar.
Bangalore ~---- 560 04}.
State of Karnataka, Department of Family Welfare, Medical Education, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore, Rep. by its Secretary.
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Medical College.»w Kadugondanahaili, Bangalore ~ 560 045, Rep. by its Principal.
{By Sri. N.K.Ramesh, Adv. for R--'R~2; Sn'. B.Mar1ohar, AGA for R3; ' Sri. K.Dhira_§ Kurnar, Adv"; for R41)" -- the Constitution Iiidia, praying'-
Notification da.ff3(;i"Og';{}2_. ' provides for aV"erag,i:1_g the rnidfclle' four; as a 14.7.2008; ithat'hasV'1:i:roVi'ded.foravcrage marks of the best four evaluations and"ctc..gV . ' J ' '*»zc=1=--. 7 RE1sié'oNDm'r'rs"~ _ These Writ Petitions are _:iiledVAi1njder. Articles 226 & 227 of In w.P.Nos.§;;g79s-éae)'2Ga'§ :
_ .
Dr, Savndeeo 'B .E., _ 'S /_ o; ..La«te% MI}. Eswarappa.
" Aged ai;;o"u':t 28'years, No.40, BED./E1 «Layout, 11 Stage; Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore -- 560 079.
.. Kumar Chowdhary, ' S,/_o,.5Dr. Shiva Ram Chowdhary, Aged about 34 years.
No.28, Saundarya, 3rd Main Road, to 'quash the impugned 2009 {as perv.Ar1.n'.exure--G} in so far as it gainst Regulations of Ganganagar, Bangalore -- 560 032.
3. Dr. Harish K, S/0. R. Krishnappa, Aged about 31 years.
No.105, 4"} Cross, Papanna Block, Ganganagar, Bangalore -- 560 032. pi'¥;{r1rIoivERs'i Q (By Sri. Udaya Hollla, Sr. Counsel for M/s. Holla 8: Holla, Advs.) AND:
1. Rajiv Gandhi University of it 0 Health Sciences, . .
4"' 'T' Block, Jayanagarg _ Bangalore - 560 041, ' it , Rep. by its Registrar. V
2. Director, _. -. 1 ' _ = Department of7.NIedical._flE§d.ucatio11. .
Ananda:Rao'C§.rcle'*,» 4' Banga.1ore'.e._ " RESPONDENTS (By Sn. N.'K.Ra1dnesh;'0 1;
Sri. B.Ma11'(:ihar._AC:A *=i=* Writ l;'et'itions are filed under Articles 226 8: 227 of theV.Con.stitutionV of India praying to declare that Clause 3(h) of g'OrdVi:1_ance.g dated 09.02.2009 issued by RGUHS vide Annegiirev--E~..,No.;V3 IO/2008~09 which provides for exclusion of theeIf1i'ghest"and" the lowest marks amongst General Valuation and C-hall_enge"Valuation and taking of the average of the middle marks for computation of the results is wholly arbitrary and 0 i1'l6gal and further be pleased to quash the same and etc.. _1gW.§§Nos.259-49-951/2009 :
0' H Dr. Sunil Mankar', S/o. Sri. S.K.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 32 years, Residing at # 352, 4*" Main, 8"' Cross, Bankers colony, Bogadi, Mysore.
Dr. Siva Kiran Babu Yarlagadda, S/0. Sri. Yariagadda Appa Rao, Aged about 32 years, Resident of H. NO.157--l, Near Bose Statue, Besta Palem, Bapatla -~« 522 101, Guntur District, AP.
Dr. Rajat Scindhia, S/0. Sri. Dwaraknath Scind?u',a';"
Aged about 26 years, Residing at No.48/B,.~' .. ..
Marappa Block, J.C.N,ag'--ar, Bangalore --- 560 006. ' ' . PETITIONERS {By Sri. R.Z\l.Narasir11ha for Sri. Harish, Adi'. s;. gAar'en Assts.',"Advs.] Health V.-Sciences, ' --._ 431 'T' Blc--ck,»Jayanagar;V Bangalore -560 '04 1' .
Rep, its Registr£:1.r~.
Rajiif'.Gar1d};i.
V 'i7'..egis_trar= «Evaluation . .Raj'iv.,C}_ahdVi1iV University of
- Health Sciences, Vlgtfi 'T5 .r31_op.k, J ayanagar, Bangalore --- 560 041.
" Statellof Kamataka, _ V. Department of Family Welfare.
Medical Education, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore, ' Rep. by its Secretary.
M7"
4. MR. Ambedkar Medical College, 1/36. Cline Road, Cooke Town, Bangalore -- 560 005, Represented by its Principal. RESP01'-STDENTS (By Sri. N.K.Ramesh. Adv. for R1 & R-2;
Sn'. B.lV.Eanohar, AGA for R3: R--4 Sd/~) =i€=§¢* These Writ Petitions are filed i'inde'r 'of the Constitution of India praying to declare_jth'e impugned Notification dated 9.2.2009 (A"r.inexure~F] as il1egal:,=V_iolative of"
Section 35(3) of the Rajiv Gandhi University orfliiealth Sciences Act, 1994 OR in the alternative ilssueya in the nature of mandamus or any othei*...appropria:te Writ, order "or direction further declaring as V ----.'--_1_rV"r;itr2_1ry; V .and._ void the impugned Notification dated 9.2.20O9_e_'ViCle7'AnneX1i:te¥F in so far as it provides for averaging th.e._midd1efoii'1f e'va'1iiation results as against regulations of 1-12.7.2008_that..had'2proVided for average marks of the best '.ralL1atioi': and etc.';------*' In A' BETWEEN: ._ -- V' S 'V
1. Dr. Jaya'kgrishnan,'i_ pi 4' Son _of Shri; C §'Krishna_r1 Kutty. Agtid "39. y6arS.--
Resident of No.39'/----l-----4»'71. K P Cfossfioad, Kochi--682 O16, .=Kera_la..Stat'e,_ V
2. .'Dr';'tNavee"nj_ Fieddy.
Son 0f__'S'1i V . Rangareddy, Aged. 29... years, Residerit of House l\}'o.5--58, » Balapur, Via Keshavagiri, ' lH.ydAerabad--50O 005, 'Andhra Pradesh.
" "Dr. Shashidhar\Patil, Son of Shri.Nagangowda, Aged about 33 years, Resident of House No. 1-10-1138, Kallur Colony, Station Road, Raiehur, Karnataka. . . . PETITIQNERS {By Sn'. X.M.Joseph, Adv.) AND:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 4m TB1ock, Jayanagar, _ Banga1ore--56O 041, represented its V Registrar. " ._ RESPGNDENT (By Sri.N.K.RaInesh, AdVL)~
-- =f==§-'=.|=.' ' H > ~ These Writ Petitions var_e'-=.filed asunder Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitutionof 'lndi§,a praying, 'to'_;i_ss'ue' an appropriate writ order/direction to;?t'h,e .Vrespondentsliajiv"Gandhi University of Health Scieneeslto'eanse'~ev,al1;1at'ion._of_the answer scripts of the petitioners stric'tly*'p.acct>rdjng' to"Ann'_exure--A, Notification dated 7 8.2007 "and, revised =Notitication';VAnneXure--E, dated 9.2.2009, both issued the respo-ndent and if need be by giving benefit of the scherne of lgra.ce»,.v1nar1;s "contemplated in Notification, Annexureéf' "dated, 1~3;9.'2.{)_0'1""issued by the Registrar of the respondentfl, M Q 7 " V. , 'In w,i§.1§d~.26648;*~2Q_Q9,;
Dr. Veena ' , V' D / 0 .Sri Svuresh Pai V. , V -- Agedllabont 2'? years, "Residingvat Maharnaya, 224/ 8 / 1, V' 21*? 1'./Eain,'"ISi Cross, Byrappa Block, ' l"Tl1yagarajanagar, Bangalore-28. PETITIONER l [By Sri. R.N.NarasiInha Murthy, Sr. Counsel it " "for Sri. Harish, Adv., for M / s. Aaren Assts.) AND:
1. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 431 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore--560 O41, Represented by its Registrar.
2. Registrar--Evaluation, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, V 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore:560 04511" = --. b "
3. State of Karnataka, A "
Department of Family Welfare, Medical E1ducat_ion.. : he Vikasa Soudha, Dr.B.R.Amb-edkar Veecihi, ' Bangalore, V " . ' Represented by its Secretary.
4. Dayanand Sagar College of ljentai Sciences, Shivage Malleswara Hills, Kurnarasvvainyl Layout, Bangalore--56O 078, T , i _ Represented byvits Prin'cipa.l; " 1 ., RESPONDENTS {By Sri N.K.Rarr;esh;,le'eAdv, for R1 21,. V Sri. B.Manohar,jAGA"ior This vJ:~it.Peaf't:.on .,is'Vi'file'd 'under Articles 226 as: 227 of the Constitution '-- of ' India. prayring to declare the impugned Notificationklated Q.2.2009"_;{Annexure--F} as illegal, violative of Section, 35(3) of Vti1e_Raji'«J Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, "].§;:99<laA.0I' inthe alternative issue a writ in the nature of ,_'lV"l\/Iandainus or any other appropriate writ. order or direction further cledaring as arbitrary and void the impugned 'inotification"dat.ed~"9.2.2009 vide Annexure--F in so far as it provides "for.,,,ave1'aging the middle four evaluation results as against regulajtions of 14.7 .2008 that had provided for average marks. of the -best four valuation and etc., H K " ' we.g.Neé..247o1~710/2009:
j_;lE_TWEEN:
"1';" 'Mallikarjuna Murthy, H.B., S/0 H.Biddappa, aged 28, N13"
Shirgur Kripa, Near Venkateshwar Kaiyan Mantapa. Patel Nagar, Hospet~Ol.
. Arun Kumar A.R., aged 31 years, No.766, 15' D Main, 111" Cross, 2% Phase Girinagar, Bangalore+~85.
. Prteethi, aged 31 years, No.10, GKW Layout 15' Cross.
Vijayanagar, Bangalore.
. Manjunath H., aged 31 years;«_i"
No.551, 15%» Main }""I1\/I'I'Layout';'"._b Mattikere, Bangalore--:5{;. = . D.Ra_jesh, Aged 28 years,_ A _ _ Lakshmi NarashimhafNi1ay'a, _ Behind S.G.i_Coi§:ege, PL1rviathi ng'aga:-,' " "
Beiiary.
. Prashanth'.fW_v'.' :
AgedVV34 yeears. 4 , C/o KI'is'hr1a_ppaL;"-.AA V' V --
365, 5?" main '3Fd' 'c:ross--~1:1r1i.versity swimmifig pool road sarswathi nagar I\/IY.%.0_1'e. " A . .
' '~ Hafis13.Babu years, , 'No. 1 13, 4»?4h"e.ross, g ~R.K.oLay5uii; " J ._P'a(im'afiabha::agar, Bangalore. . Vi'i:raI.fi Sgiaged 31 Basaveshwar road, .. jL3*h cross, Mysore.
&' .v_VKavita M.Salagar, aged :32, Rutugana Dhavanti, Layout
-.Kusnoor road, Gulbarga.
-112
10.Swetha, aged R/o 1554, 17111 main, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. . . . PETITIONERS [By Sr1'.S.P.Shankar, Sr.Counsel appears for SInt.Mamata G.Kulkarni, Adv.) AND:
Rajiv Gandhi. University of Health Sciences, By its Registrar, 4"' T Block, V Jayanagar, Banga1ore--560 041. " v _ , " [By Sri.N.K.Ra1nesh, Adv.) These Writ Petitioris*-._are_'AfiIed" :.;r:_der Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying to directfirespondent to conduct the challenge valuation sought the.--peti--tjioners by appointing 4 different examiners :i'n'"'co11np1ia*nce I Notification dated 9.2.2009 vide §Ai;n.e§:ure=§A gissfue'dA'by=.the respondent and to direct the respondents to abide thejscherne of grace marks after challenge valiuatifon is'rnade'j'arid._et,c.;--.p These: Writl5'et'i'tio11sV'havi.ng heard and reserved for order on 14.09.2009, coming _on._ for pronouncement this day, the Court made the following: --' ~ = "l'ntu'a1p1.t Writ petitions, common questions arise for consideration:."i_p_ flence, they are heard, clubbed together and are _ 'disposed by this common order.
All the petitioners are students studying in Post Graduate lfheflourses either in Medical or _ Dental Sciences in different " Colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences A/t t 12 _, {hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). tn all these writ petitions, except in W.P.Nos.24701--7 1 0 / 2009 and W.P.Nos.26572-574/2009, the petitioner--students'9,» have challenged the Notification dated 09.02.2009 issued'-jébvfftvvthe respondent--University with regard to * providing for consideration of the *"average four if valuations excluding the highest and;"the::.1ovvest'rn'ar1.;s for the purpose of declarationiépxf the P.G;'f examination. Insofar as the twog_ba;tch"o_f "p--etitions referred to herein above, the peiitioner--stt;:de'nt:s.pg'therein have made similar grievance in. the grounds raigsedt huts have sought for effecting igoottrectly construing and interpreting ef_feet:v€.of thge'r.}j'_'\Iot.ifieation in question.
3. The brieftifacts for appreciating the controversy _ raisedinuthese ufrittpetitlons, stated in nutshell. are that; all the petitiotrierlsTifiavaappeared for the examinations conducted by the_respo'nd'ent-idniversity during May--June 2009 at the end of the r'espe__ctiv.e' P.G.Cou.rses. They are aggrieved by the if"'::7.i"~.ev'a1tiatiori----of their answer papers as per the Notification dated 0 issued by the respondent--University providing for the Vrnethod and manner of effecting challenge valuation denying the % __ _ benefit of the best marks obtained by them in the valuations made.
4. The respondent--University is established by an _ena'ct'ment of the State, ViZ.. Rajiv Gandhi University of Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'th»e._Act' Tile i _ came into force from 01.06.1996 and-._all:_the:' andl'i'De171tal Institutions previously affiliated to different VUriiversities the"
State have been now admitted'l:"'«to the it of the respondent--University. riesgiolnd.eriAtE»'University conducts examinations for Medical both at Underw Graduate and tiovllevahiate the performance of the students for of awarding Degrees on successful coinpletionyofi,theirrespective courses. Section 35 of the Act provides for and states that the Syndicate _ may, Vfifomirtime to time, make Ordinances and amend or repeal tIlq:e*sairrie,v'l" S.-ub.4clause 2 of Section 35 states that subject to the pi""ovi'sions* and the Statutes, the Ordinance may provide forlmatters enumerated under subwclause (a) to {1} ~ .A .f'A"-therein. Asuper Section 35(2)(d}, the Ordinance to be made may 1:5roVidef5for conduct of examination of the University and the vconditions under which students shall be admitted to such examinations. Sub--clause (3) of Section 35 mandates that in JV _ 14 _ making the Ordinance the Syndicate shall consult the Board of Studies in matters relating to the appointment and duties of Examiners and the Academic Council in the matter. '1'elati'ng to conduct or standard of examination or conditionsof of Students.
5. The respondent--University issued--ca? Notific'atiorI-9..__under Section 35(2) bringing into effect-gm Ordinance. ',th,e_V.Vma;tter the Scheme of examination relativngito Medicine and Dentistry. The Scheme for Courses consisted of Dissertation, Clinical, Oral and Practical that there shall be atleast four lexargniners* in"e'ach"subject at an examination and out of them; atleast:':'5,(:)%, of.t.hem'sha1l be external examiners. It prescribed minimum 5'O"/E;_o'fv marks in each paper in Theory and Practical 'to be' 'declared as passed. Since, the respondent- Llnixtersitynoticed certain errors in evaluation and felt the need for the year 1999, by an Ordinance, the V _ Synd'icateV.pro"trided for re--valuation of answer scripts. Again, by ariother Notification dated 18.12.2000, among others, it was a._provided that with regard to PC. Degree Courses, all answer scripts where the difference of marks awarded between the " 'highest and the lowest was 15% or more of the maximum marks it alga RGUHS. The committee met several times and discussed the issues related to UG and PG examinations in depth. To maintain the high standards of education at PG and UG level, the committee recommended to bring certain refonns""'«ine!ud:'ng'«p abolition of III and V valuation for UG coursesl K V' respectively which is being»AA»practi~c'edVv""
Instead, the committee strongly.' ii' to introduce the provision» of challenge pvaiiiationllg certain modification ,,.c:I5L7iluatit9I1. . vlcorrigaillation 0 system also. The matterV__tu®,_discussed-- .exte,nsivety in the Joint Commitieebf Committee and the committee constitutedto 1loo.:'«:_iin.'t.fo.nt'tf.e.e grievances of students pertaining"to'~:exarn'inatiort;« telated matter on 25.6.2008. Jginiaeemeeiieeiieeo recommended the said from the July--August 2008 exc;raind?iio: l onwards This methpoldt ir1'troduced--« dkxnown as 'Challenge Valuation' provided _.for tan,' opportunity to the candidates concerned to challenge traluation by remitting prescribed fees per ViNo'tification dated 14.7.2008 came to be revised by anotl:;er_vlNotification dated 30.8.2008 with certain minor ll""~.__l"modificat_ii)ns. As per the challenge valuation provided under it Notifications, the answer scripts were subjected to K "independent evaluation by a panel of teachers suggested by the Registrar (Evaluation) from the list of panel of examiners and as 56/ system also. The matter was discussed extensively in the Joint Committee of Examination Rejorms Committee and the committee constituted to look into 'Jthe grievances of students pertaining to exaniinati,onV'vv., related matter on 25.06.2008. The Joint'.eeonifriitieeyi-'e--.--."' - also recommended the said matter to 0' from the JulywAugust 2008 exar'ninati0n.'~an::l The Syndicate in its meeting 07.02.2009 suggested t?er'tain WT.1:1e M modifications have been 'ific0rporated.. 0 Hence this Revised N0tification"..
The relevant ciauses in the lhvirtijaugriecfNiatification dated 09.02.2009 namve3;z.y.,e:tauees {ti}: (3).:"ii;:)-V<3é___(t:J] Which provide for the method ti"J4Hbe""a.ti'0f$t.e,d"'forA'Vch.aiiie'r§,ge' Valuation are extracted hereunder: 0' All papers shall be valued by Two/F'a_ur Vvdflfierent .y:examiners as the case may be, indepen,dently.' 0' V ' 0' ................ ..
V "-"decided to introduce the provision of valuation for the aggrieved students 'arid decided to follow the following conditions. " . A3 (a) ........... ., lb} .......... ..
(c) ......... ..
(CU ......... ..
(e) ......... ..
IQAIL 20 a valuation and challenge valuation whereas, in the previous Notification dated 14.07.2008, once a candidate applies for challenge valuation by remitting the prescribed fees;l'th"e.yg:ii1swer script was subjected for independent evaluation purpose of final computation of th_(2..I'.€.S'1'.1ltS'".' of the best of four valuations was tozbe ;r;_éonsidered,:l' A
8. Sn' R.N.Narasimhamurthy",". flounsel appearing for the petitionerastudeiitsorcontends "that as per Section 35 (3) of the it the University to consult the Academic any Ordinance with regard golf: eizlaminations. He urges that unless records that the Academic Councilr.wa*-sinl the said consultation was an effective impugned Notification cannot be susta.ined*.in lavv.v--..:vlfIe&11as further contended that the earlier in hlotiiilcation provided for averaging the best of four valuations for declaring' :tl;.e_ and in the absence of any reasonable _ ground braving rationale nexus with the object or purpose for fdisoensingfiwith the requirement of averaging the best of four the change over to a different system by going in for 'averaging the middle four by excluding the highest marks " obtained by the students is arbitrary and irrational amounting 3/ _ 21 *77V to violation of the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is his further contention that when there is a departure from the previous procedure adopted as.f-"per the Notification dated 14.07.2008, in the absence of reasons for such departure and in the absence to show who recommended for elirnir1ati'on of5_th_e. 'h1gi_1est--.fnarks C T and whether the Academic Council'.wa's zconsuvlted whether such consultation and." effective xcvonsultatiofl assumes significance and unless '*-'th'e.._ resp'ondeni:--UniVersity shows to the satisfaction of*} Court that these crucial questions were in fact addressed and..taken_note of while issuing the impugned. .__«egéercise"undertaken suffered from ille,gVality'.f' sujbmfissionflthat as the Valuation is done by the ezrperts fronfaniong the panel and the students have nothingfl"to_l do...'~inA°th'eir choice, there was absolutely no 'x"rationaie:,_fin eagcludingthe highest marks obtained as assessed evavluators in respect of any particular subject. _9. '"'Sri.v«._"M.l;{Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing in i.",4f"'4.anotl51er batch of writ petitions apart from adopting the ,arguments addressed by Sri. R.N.Narasimhamurthy, contends nothing is forthcoming in the impugned Notification as to A " ~ A' the nature of recommendations of the Academic Council or the %' __ W Board of Studies calling for change over from the existing system of averaging the marks of the best. Sri. Najlcgfurther contends that the impugned Notification is required.jtoe:'b.e*read along with Regulations framed by the responden~t-;«.UniVe"rsity notified under Notification dated O1__y.Q1g._._'200G from time to time including by way and if it is so read it is clear that the 'e'.ralu.atiojnv...of answer"
scripts of PG. Courses is subjected. valluatilons; leach coded theory answer scripts shallV:y"ordi_na;ri]y"beyalued by two internal and two external ex_arniner.s..V:._ Accogrdgingto'hint Clause 3{i), {g} 8:
{h} of the impufgned~'.regu--lations Vit~c'lear that the answer scripts shall be subjected.ytofrindependent valuation by panel of teachers and C' 'niarks"'obtai11ed in general valuation and challenge'valuationnshall Vbextalien into account for computation of marks to d4e'clare.theAresults by taking out the lowest and the amovng the"'"s'aid valuations. Emphasizing on the answer scripts shall be subjected for independent eyaluation' as found in Clause 3{fl of the impugned _ 'l.\§otificat~~_ioln;, he submits that after challenge valuation is sought evaluation has to be necessarily by an independent '"2___"eVaiuation just as the evaluation at the first time, i.e., by "".another set of 4 examiners, 2 internal and 2 external and as the .. 23 VW71 respondent--University has failed to comply with this requirement the exercise done is vitiated. He has alsoreferred to the details of the marks assigned to the petitioner--.studentvs to show how the marks assigned in the valuationsdrriadel from 19 by one evaluator to 52 g_anot--hefr"
evaluation.
10. Sri. Udaya Holla, Learnedvivtjlptfdeniorh"Counsel for petitioner--Students in wllntl"'pet§itions has vehemently contended is illegal as there was gb.s:p1;;te1;g"fio' "dispensing with the method adopteid_«._'¢arl--ilerl average of highest marks 'ln§ad«:»f Sri.S.P.Shankar and Sri.Jayal':uma1'llPVatiL:'Seriior Counsel appearing for some of the petitionerevstndenlts other learned counsel appearing in the _%coln11ected"c3.ses have also canvassed similar contentions. 111, learned counsel appearing for the _responder1t§~[;Iniversity has defended the action of the :'l.v4.u'*--respondent: He has made available the records pertaining to t.thelldcliberations that took place before issuing the impugned '=Q.rdinance. He contends that the matter was brought before the it C' * "Academic Council and it is the Academic Council which has we _ 24 :4;
taken the decision and the Syndicate has approved the same and therefore there is no room for the petitioners to make any legal grievance against the same. He has relied on the decisions in 11.12 2004 KAR 3419 {S.K.SABIR AHMED 8: oTHE1;s-- GANDHI UNIVERSITY or HEALTH SCIENCES. e»:§-f:4'1c1l""
HR 2002 KAR 1146 [MOAZAM SHAHV-T.{I'1r"d§ &--'_4oT_1~1Ij§:a$ \%s..i"rJI&,(E-- } l CI-IANCELLOR. RAJIV GANDHI fimwfikérriv. SCIENCES .3: OTHERS] to supp(Qr_t"'h.is conten:j.ofi'..tha_t"inmatters.it like this the wisdom of the expertlll:'ood3{"cannot.be gone into in framing a policy for evaluating la: student or for the purpose of declaring hirrras. ipassred. 'Mlle also contended that the papers_ oisthe by two Valuers upon cliiallengéievf, the highest and the lowest, vxlhat therefore, the average of the middle four eifaluation h-aslbleen rightly taken into consideration "*for c'oi::<1p11ting the"'1r1--arks for the purpose of declaration of lfresultst _ 'He'a}'soVcontends that many students have already got the'.benefit method and have passed out and if the present challenge is gone into it would amount to reopening the ll..e'ntire"«.matter and discriminating against those whose results '-{have already been announced.
\LLLA\ 25 _
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the materials on record, the questions that arise for consideration are:
" ti) 'Whether the impugned Notification": ..
09.02.2009 insofar as it provides for ~ middle four valuation results excluding the it the lowest dispensing with fJttie'"ectrl«ier-:' computing average marks of as provided in the Regu!'aiio.ns oii?.v:ll§:§.'0.?T.V2008h revised on 30.8.2008 is violative ofisection 35(3) of the Rajiv VG-otndhig.Univej'silty_of I-l'lealth"S4ciences Act", 1994? ' 7 " "
(ii) VVhether4theimpugned:l:IVotij3ieatio'n"dated 09.02.2009 understood ~trjue1:spiri_t« provides for independent evatuatiozgijiigby llseparatelvlelvaluators, two externals two intei the challenge valuation?"
I3. OT1, }3eru'sal of' the entire pleadings and the original hrecorcilslhi' nj1~acle- Agavailahiehvby the counsel for the respondent- seen that the University had constituted a Coinmitteeurhlich was subsequently renamed as Examination _ Reforms fjoizirnittee to look into the matter and suggest reforms. tghle""~rr1eetings held by the said Committee on 18.07.2007, ___"§1.0;9.2007, 05.10.2007 and 15.10.2007 discussions were held on Various academic issues. The consolidated recommendation V _ 25 TTVV made by the Examination Reforms Committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate in its meeting held on 03.11.2007 constituted a Joint Committee to look into the matter pertaining to the second valuation. The Joint_l'4Clomi;1ittee consisted of the Examination Reforms Committee. Committee constituted to look i1:.'to"V'the 'grievagncesg "oi" the T students relating to examination. ljoint m_eeting 02 Committee was held on 25.06.2008. the --sa_i_d the existing 5"? valuation of exams.i'n-- the Uniire1'sityV:conducted for theory examination llWas' the Committee I""
unanimously appfoyed the ahcl.iltio'fs__ of :;.t*V¥ valuation for PG course which«--ur:-is month of July, 2007. As can be seen recommendation dated 25.06.2008, the relevant rlecommengdatjian'provided as under:
f'HVoweuerm.V_lthefCo'rnniittee after going through certain 'disicrepvancies valuation recommended for the A ' 2 , juiiroduction of following changes: 3 H heVCommittee also recommended to make provision for challenge valuation by the aggrieved student.
In such case the answer script shall be subjected for independent valuation by a senior teacher specified by Chairman, Board of Appointment of Examiners [BOAEJ ....... ..
_27n
4. White computing the marks the best of two valuation is taken and results are announced."
14. Based on this recommendation of the Joint Meeting dated 25.06.2008, the earlier Nottfieattnnelll'untedi» 14.07.2008 providing for challenge vvai't2a.tionl_: 0 j ll average marks of the best of four valuations --providf'ed_1 In the reference made to the Nioti'I"ic_ation' r:1_ate_dll i_43.07';'2eG08 and 0 from the preamble to the said Notification i'[.li§'ar1Af1]:)Hl.3i/i' clear that to maintain high standardsliilof.edt1eatio'ii.'vinl:gPGVand UG level, the Examination R'3f__0mn:s"' " -- V K 'made certain recommendations the' llorlovision of challenge valuation__and"th:e extensively in the Joint Committee __ __ Reforms Committee and the Committee into the grievances of the students .Perta1ni1é'li,"lltothe examinations related matter on and based' on the recommendation of the Joint Noltifioation dated 14.07.2008 came to be issued. 'V15. lain. the "impugned Notification, again reference is made to it 'lithe minutes of the Joint Committee meeting dated 25.06.2008 Notification dated 14.07.2008 issued based on the '«l..:re'c'ommendation of the Joint Committee. At Sl.No.10 of the 0 15/ _.. _ reference, minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate dated 30.07.2008 is referred and at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 proceedings of the Academic Council dated 24.11.2008 and of tkie~.Syndicate dated 07.02.2009 are referred. In the preamble;"d--.a,:gaiii----- same reference is made to the recommendat'io"n'_'ima.deby the Examination Reforms Committee and discussion e2EI':ensiVely made by the Joint Cornmitteenarnely the Comrnittiee. .con3s1:itttted for Examination Reforms and the" committee «.constituted to look into the grievances of sti.}der;i.ts {pert-airning to the examination related matter on the Notification is issued aygreigiflg four marks for the purpose of to declare the results It is thus clear that the materialfithat «for the respondent-University to issue the imp:1gned';.No':ification dated 09.02.2009 was the same ._as aVailable"'*"*when the previous Notification dated to be issued. No other material is placed before the"'(3o.€:rt in the form of deliberation, discussion or '.recommendation based on the past experience which "fnecessitated a switch over to a new method to be adopted by
-- discarding the highest marks and taking the average of the "middle four after the challenge valuation. The ... 29 _ earlier method of declaration of results by taking the best of the four valuations made is the result of active deliberation by the Joint Committee and the recommendation made by it.g.----_.'tJnless there is anything to show that the University found -method inexpedient or in any manner unreasonable and/or.g'th:at..the: a matter was again reexamined byrrrithe expert--V..'4Comn.1ittee C whereupon a recommendation for switclizing oyer' to the 'v.aVerage of middle four by excluding thehighest and yeasvimade, as it rightly contended by the l_earnedy_Co:Au.nse_l» for.th'e.pAeti.tioners. the very basis for the impugri'ed' gNotifit:ation.ifw'ould be shaken. The only material thatisv made' Counsel for the respondent§--.Uniyersity«is a decision taken by the acaclemivc'lCo;1nci'lLir1.yitsllvmeeting held on 24.11.2008. The said meeting 'deli'berat_:edt "many as 38 items. Item No.3 of the said meeting. ."pei.'tai'ns to "consideration of revised 'lvV'Noti£'ication regarding""implementation of Challenge valuation". decrision taken on the said item reads as under:
A.._F"CtftF?r'mgdetailed discussion, it was decided to for the change of nomenclature of Challenge .e."evaViu.ation as 'Revaluation'. It was also decided to salyect each paper for double valuation and consider the average marks of middle two marks avoiding the highest and lowest of the original valuation and M30."
revaluation marks. It was also decided to recommend for hosting the valuer sheet on the University Website masking the identity of the teachers". '' Based on this decision, Sri Ramesh contends'thatiTthe- body namely the academic Counci1...has had" occasion 'to. discuss the matter and come up \:itith;'t11.e decision to».V'tcons.ider ' the average marks of middleiwwo avoiidiiigthe-ihighestt and the lowest of the original and marks. He also points out the;~«.rSj"nd;i.cat:edated 30.7.2008 at item No.50 which pertains:-i.toV-.V of Notifications issued by onrthe"jrecommendations of Examinations. the sub committee consistiinghhoi members constituted to look into thevvhhgrievances pertaining examination reiated matters_". Vddecivsiorz taken on the 76"' meeting of the held on 3U.'7.2008 in the premises of the University ' reads 'a.sVt,1_nde'r.:_ "
»'_'h'i"hhe _nati_f£cations issued by RGUHS based on the recornrnendations of Examinations Reforms Committee and .. the sub committee consisting of Syndicate and Senate r me}mbers constituted to look into the grievances of students pertaining examination related matters were ratified. After 'i detailed discussion the Syndicate decided to refund fuil amount of Rs.5,0OO/M if the student passed the "%/.
Wgla examination. It was also decided to issue corrigendum regarding refund of arrzounf'.
Counsel further invites the attention of the Syndicate Meeting dated 07.02.2009 and the --deciVsion:llltal}_{en'~ therein Whic h reads as under:
53 Amendment to the Revised'* Notification issuedl'. regarding implementation of VChallen"'e""v'ai'uation' dated 30.08.2008 asi'e».per the r~e_commen:.dations of the Academic Council in its "'«rr_ieeAt:5ng dated 24.11.2003. ' DECISION It was decided to issVue1pl'io_tov.'cj:01:)i.es of the answer script:-tato the.students withiri the stipulated time by the'..UniVersi'i:y. 1. '.I.'.l1ereat"tere.v_th'el students have to apply ;i'or_. cthallenge, Valuation within the time stipuiatecl~I._by"-.the"'-Ijnivlersity. The students who ha}/e:»..scVored lminifmiim 40% of marks in the paper 0"conc.erned=.oii1y'=are eligible to apply for challenge valuations, marks obtained by the candidates both inigeneralauvaluation and challenge valuation * have to be'--C0'P..§3i'dered for Computation of results. maxim';im,a'nd the minimum marks scored by the candidate shall be excluded for computation. l 'V or The average of middle two marks shali be the final V -2 marks fortiiat papers.
16." . h The for the University was asked to submit as to " ti1'e~ ...de1ib 'whether therevis any other material available to show the nature eration or discussion that took place before the academic Council on 24.11.2008 prior to the decision on Item Was taken or before the Syndicate when it met on % ?77 32 _ 30.7.2008 and 7.2.2009 to take the decisions as extracted above. However, he submitted that no other material is available to show the same. It is clear from the decision taken in the academic Council that there is absolutely nothingiitollshow that the academic Council had appraised itself position which provided for considering the average. iofiithe '.::;es'tee . of the four valuations for the purpose ltlie-it.;na;rlis for declaring the results, the negative aspects, if, tlige staid" ; procedure in existence, the neeVd;.t_lllif any,' in for a change in the method of dispensing with the computation of average of fourivaluations. Not even a single piece of riiaterialI__is gavailablesft'o.slriow what aspect was addressed or is "considered "'~b_efor_e taking a decision in the meetings of the Aca,;§ie£nei:§'c:(§:i:<;~;'z:i1 and the Syndicate.
17. .. rightlyll "contended by the learned Senior Counsel Murthy, as per Section 35(3) of the Act, Academic Council is mandatory and the V .consul'tati*on "contemplated under the said provisions is not a is H 0' flcorisultation but an effective consultation. In the instant ll_l_pcase;"tliere is absolutely no application of mind for the nature of llwamendment that is sought to be introduced by dispensing with is " "the existing one and to the object and purpose for which the B6 _ 33 VVVVV said amendment was intended. In fact, a reading of the decision taken on Item No.3 by the Academic Council also does not reflect that it had an occasion to examine actually sought to be introduced by way of amend--m.ent;'l~. referred to in the decision is the needyyto subject" each"paper'./tor . double valuation and 'consider the a*.;era'ge..mar1<s.of midtdleeitwo marks avoiding the highest the-..lovJestf:of..;the"
valuation and revaluation marklsi'-'_So_far" course is concerned, in the presentilimptigngedlh l'wIogt.i'fgit:a_gtion, the average of middle four evaluation ivs...€0:._iV3E by excluding the lowest and the not make mention of averaging the assuming that this anomalydvllinv 'academic Council is not very signiiicanidit is "point out that in the absence of any material "1;e:fore.T'the- Academic Council regarding the basis 'l V. 'for sutil1:,,Aehange oi}ef".'a"r1d the need for such change over and in application of mind to such factors it cannot be th there was any effective consultation. On the other " the previous Notification was preceded by the "«i:re-comgriendation made by the Joint Committee consisting of the Examination Reforms Committee and the Committee constituted to look into the grievances of the students 1% W _.
pertaining to examination related matters. Any departure from the Notification issued which was based on such recommendation by the Committee had to be necessarily by due deliberations by an expert body like the Academic As the present exercise does not satisfy the of consultation under Section 35{3--b_]_,..of__the_ Notification cannot be sustained in A.
18. The University cannot go"o'n"chaVnging themethod without applying its mind and vvithout leXa'n'iiningf_theills, evils and other negative aspects--in'--the 'l7he change over has to be made shaving a':.vi.sion: for th-e.future and taking note of the drasticV'cons'equence_s'ltlfiatcanl ensue. There is also no rationai nexus shovvn b'betvveen.sacn;ficing the best valuation made which cert,ainlyi'goes ilrrfavourvof the students and the object sought to ,beuacl:i'eVed_vvhich necessarily is the need for fair evaluation. iseffected by the experts chosen by the University as presciribed in the Regulations. Therefore. unless there is cpphianygreason for dispensing with such favourable valuations students, there is absolutely no justification discarding the highest valuation, more so, because the ._ 35 _ change is not preceded by application of mind by the expert body in this regard.
19. Though it is contended that this is a policy matterfand the Court should not interfere in such matters to evaluating the merit of the students, it has to be'Vs__tate'd:
evaluation of the merit and fixing the'stai1dari:l of.evaluatior1 l 7 to be made in accordance with law and in. this case it, is refruired to be made as mandated under .3513} Since' the impugned Notification is "preceded it effective consultation and by at 'the expert body applying its mind iiovpthe :1'elevaVt;tv'jtac;tors3change over made from the existlmé-'.<< Notification dated 09.02.2(l'Q9 is can certainly examine to this limited extent' the Notification. The decisions relied, Cour1s_elfor&the respondents have no application to thefacts involveid in the present cases.
20,." _'Once_«.'tvheeimpugned Notification is held illegal, what remains» the previous Notification dated 14.07.2008, vvhereunder the best of four evaluations are required to be taken ___"'note; of for the purpose of declaring the results. The petitioner- 'Hstudents are entitled for evaluation of their results based on this %/ M 35 d Notification dated 14.07 .2008 as revised on 30.8.2008 and their results have to be declared by taking note of the same. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the affinnat.ive..e:"j=A'sthe impugned Notification is itself held illegal, consid,eiration:ofT3:§o*i.nty No.2 becomes unnecessary. _
21. In the result and for the aforementionedireetsons'; lthesey Writ petitions are allowed. 'ihe.::impugvneci_V' is set aside. The respondent;{inive.:"sitynt.:'isT"d,irected"to"Vjfollow the method provided under dated 14.07.2008 as revised on 30.8.2008. for the by averaging the best of the ~m€1¢i_e::'ldnd.' ldnnounce the results. The Universi oenelrcise. expeditiously. Sd/-',3 '\ JUDGE a