Karnataka High Court
Dr. Martin S/O Isac T A vs The Vice Chancellor And Ors on 18 November, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.202195 OF 2022 (EDN, EX)
BETWEEN
DR. MARTIN S/O ISAC T A
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC STUDENT
R/O LAXMI NIVAS
ROOM NO.1, KOTNOR ROAD,
DARIYAPUR, KALABURAGI 585102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
RAJIV GANDI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. REGISTRAR EVALUATION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560041
3. AL BADAR BENTAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
NEAR PDA ENGG. COLLEGE,
OPP. KORANTI HANUMAN MANDIR,
NAGANHALLI ROAD,
KALABURAGI 585102,
EMAIL. [email protected]
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN
-2-
4. DR.PRASAD KONDA
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
MDS (ORTHODONTICS AND
DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS)
AL BADAR DENTAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL, KALABURAGI 585102
(R4-DELETED V/O DATED 06.09.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHREEHARSHA HARWAL,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. R.S.KADAGANCHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY AND THE PRINCIPAL RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 TO
RE-EVALUATE THE PRACTICAL AND VIVA EXAMINATION
PAPERS PERTAINING TO PETITIONER IN THE FINAL YEAR
MDS (ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS)
SUBJECT IN THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 COLLEGE THROUGH
SOME OTHER EXAMINERS UNDER THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY EXCLUDING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 COLLEGE
AND ANNOUNCE APPROPRIATE RESULTS. IN THE EVENT THE
PETITIONER GETS APPROPRIATE PASSING MARKS IN THE
VIVA EXAMINATION IN THE REVALUATION, THE
PETITIONERS RESULT IN THE FINAL MDS EXAMINATION MAY
BE ANNOUNCED AS PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE FAILED
RESULT MARKS CARD AS PER ANNEXURE- A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner, who is a student of third years MDS (Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics), at third respondent-College, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- University to revaluate the practical and viva-voce examination papers pertaining to final year MDS (Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics) subjects.
2. During the course of these proceedings, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that although the petitioner had sought for a copy of the answer scripts of the practical examination undertaken by the petitioner, the respondent-College had not issued the answer scripts. However, subsequently the copies of the answer scripts have been furnished to the petitioner. On going through the answer scripts, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in the practical examination where four -4- evaluators, evaluated the petitioner, the petitioner has been awarded 89 marks out of 200 marks. Similarly, the petitioner has been awarded 40 marks out of 100 marks in viva-voce. However, in terms of the requirement as found it the answer script itself, if the candidate has secured less than 50% marks, the evaluators are required to give their remarks. However, it is pointed out that though the remarks are given in the viva-voce examination, no such remarks have been furnished in the practical examination.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that out of four evaluators, two are external evaluators, as per the requirement stipulated in the Regulation. All the four evaluators have given their remarks. It is the same set of evaluators who have evaluated the practical as well as the viva-voce examination. It is therefore submitted that if the evaluators have given their remarks in the viva-voce answer script, that is sufficient and it is not mandatory -5- that the remarks have to be given in both the answer scripts. At any rate, it is submitted that the law in this regard has been well settled that unless Rules and Regulations of the University provide for revaluation, be it, theory paper or practical examination or viva- voce, courts cannot direct revaluation of any paper. Learned Counsel submits that in terms of the Regulations of the respondent-University, revaluation is permissible only in respect of theory paper and there is no provision for revaluation of practical or viva-voce examination. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on several decision including U.P.P.S.C., AND ANOTHER VS. RAHUL SINGH AND ANOTHER, (2018) 7 SCC 254. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in the case of SURVESH VS. THE VICE- CHANCELLORS AND OTHERS in W.P.No.62628/2012, decided on 10.10.2012 at Dharwad Bench. Learned Counsel submits that a policy decision incorporated in -6- the Rules/Regulations not providing for revaluation, rechecking, verification cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-College submits that the petitioner has already paid the fees for the ensuing examination and having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University, wherein it has been pointed out that there is no provision for revaluation of a practical or viva-voce examination, learned Counsel submits that the writ petition may be dismissed while directing the petitioner to take the ensuing examination.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that having regard to the admitted position as to the provisions of the Rules And Regulations of the respondent-University, -7- where there is no provision for revaluation of practical or viva-voce examination, the prayer made in the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent- University to revaluate the practical and viva-voce answer scripts of the petitioner cannot be permitted. Having regard to the settled position of law, that unless there is a provision in the Rules And Regulations for revaluation of an answer script or scrutiny of an answer script as a matter of right, Courts cannot direct revaluation of such answer scripts. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the practical examination answer script, the evaluators have not assigned their remarks although they have awarded less than 50%, this Court has to once again fall back on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAHUL SINGH (supra) which was cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University. It has been held by the Honb'e Apex Court that in such -8- circumstances, courts may permit revaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.
6. That being the position, this Court does not find such circumstances or facts emanating in the present case.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court having been satisfied that there is no merit in the writ petition, proceeds to dismiss the same.
8. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL