Karnataka High Court
Miss Kumpati Bhavya Deepthi vs Sri. Devaraj Urs Academy on 15 December, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.55769 OF 2017 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
Miss Kumpati Bhavya Deepthi,
Aged about 21 years,
D/o.Kumpati Vara Prasad,
Door No.7-298-7,
Sunkara Anjaneyulu Bazaaru,
Vallaru Road, Vuyejeeru,
Krishna - 521 165,
Andhra Pradesh. .. Petitioner
(By Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay T.P., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of
Higher Education and Research
(A Deemed to be University)
P.B.No.62, Tamaka,
Kolar - 563 101,
Rep. by its Registrar.
2. The Controller of Examinations,
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of
Higher Education and Research
(A Deemed to be University)
P.B.No.62, Tamaka,
Kolar - 563 101.
3. Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College,
P.B.No.62, Tamaka,
Kolar - 563 101,
Rep. by its Principal.
2
4. Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences,
4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 041,
Rep. by its Registrar. ... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R1 to
R3 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner
dated 25.11.2017 (vide Annexure-D) sent through e-
mail for revaluation of her Anatomy Theory paper of 1st
year M.B.B.S. Examinations with Register No.16M10066
in respect of the Examination held during October 2017
and declare the results thereon forthwith, to direct R1 to
R3 to furnish the photocopy of the answer script in
respect of Anatomy Theory paper of 1st year MBBS
Examination held in October 2017 with Register
No.16M10066 in respect of the petitioner and to direct
the R3 to permit the petitioner to continue her in 2nd
year MBBS Course at the R3 Institution during the
academic year 2017-18 and complete the course and
etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reconsider the representation made by her on 25.11.2017 (vide Annexure-D) sent through e- mail for re-evaluation of her answer script in 'Anatomy' Theory paper of 1st year M.B.B.S. Examinations held in October 2017 and to declare the result thereof. She has also sought for a photocopy of the answer script in 3 the said subject to be made available to her and to permit her to continue her studies in second year M.B.B.S. course at the third respondent Institute for the academic year 2017-18.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court had directed by an interim order passed in W.P.No.49498/2016 dated 18.11.2016 for re-evaluation of the answer script in respect of 'Biochemistry' of the first year M.B.B.S. Course and after complying with that direction by the respondent Institute this Court disposed of the writ petition on 08.12.2016 by directing the Institute to announce the result of the Examination. He therefore, submits that a similar direction may be issued in the instant case although there is no specific Regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts or for furnishing the photocopy of the answer scripts to the students.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it is noted firstly, there are no Regulations made by the respondent University which, is stated to be a Deemed 4 University, with regard to revaluation of the answer scripts or furnishing of the photocopies of the answer scripts to the students. In the absence of such a Regulation this Court cannot direct that such a compliance must be made either by way of an interim order or a final order. Secondly, in W.P.No.49498/2016 this Court has expressly stated that the interim order as well as the final order should not be treated as a precedent in respect of other cases. In the circumstances, no direction can be issued to the respondents with regard to the re-evaluation of the answer script in 'Anatomy' subject to the first respondent University or for furnishing photocopy of the answer script in that subject to the petitioner herein. At the same time, the respondent Deemed University is directed to consider as to whether Regulations in that regard could be made for the benefit of students of the Deemed University as similar Regulations have been made by the fourth respondent, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. If a representation in that regard is given by the petitioner then the same to be considered 5 by the first respondent University. Further, the first respondent University may re-consider the prayer made by the petitioner on the principle of parity if the same is applicable to the case of the petitioner also.
4. The petitioner is also at liberty to make a representation for providing an opportunity to the students who have failed in their examination to appear in the supplementary examination by considering making of Regulations in that regard. Petitioner could also make such representation to the Medical Council of India in so far as the Deemed University such as the first respondent is concerned. If such representations are made, it is expected that the same would be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
5. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-