Karnataka High Court
Hithesh N vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 6 June, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.No.20471 OF 2017 (EDN - RES)
BETWEEN :
HITHESH N.,
S/O Dr. C.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
NO.53, NARAYANA NAGARA,
II BLOCK, 4TH MAIN,
DODDAKALLASANDRA POST,
KEMPAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJAY KUMAR PATIL, ADV.)
AND :
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1
UNIVERSITY TO AWARD ADDITIONAL MARKS TO THE ANSWERS
-2-
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR QUESTION NO.21 OF
OPHTHALMOLOGY PAPER(QP CODE NO.1091) OF 3RD MBBS
(RS3) AS PER THE ANSWER SCRIPT AT ANNEXURE-E IN THE
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED IN THE SUBJECT OF
OPHTHALMOLOGY BY THE R-1 UNIVERSITY IN DECEMBER
2016/JANUARY 2017 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE REFER THE
SAID QUESTION NO.21 TO A THIRD AND INDEPENDENT
EXAMINER FOR REVALUTION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent-University to award additional marks to the answers given by the petitioner for question Nos.21, of Ophthamology paper interalia sought for a direction to the 1st respondent-University to refer the answer script of the petitioner in the subject of Ophthalmology examination conducted in December 2016/January 2017 to the third examiner for revaluation.
2. The petitioner appeared for III year MBBS (RS3) examination conducted by the 1st respondent-University in December 2016/January 2017. The results of the -3- said examinations were announced in March, 2017. The petitioner has been declared as failed in Subject of Ophthalmology. In the said subject, the petitioner has secured 54 marks. It is the contention of the petitioner that if he had secured one more mark, he would have passed in the said subject. It is contended that the answers given by the petitioner to the question No.21 of Ophthalmology paper has not been valued properly. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Ajay Kumar Patil appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Jeevith C.Reddy -v- Registrar (Evaluation) in W.P.No.530/2012 (DD 18.2.2013) would contend that the first valuator has awarded '0' to question No.21, whereas the second valuator has awarded '2' marks to the same question. In such situation, awarding of '0' to the question by one valuator when particularly the -4- second valuator has awarded some marks is an apparent error or negligence in the process of evaluation. Thus, the Court can definitely form an opinion that the said question No.21would carry some marks. Though the Rules do not provide for referring the matter to a third valuator, but when there is an apparent error, this Court has got jurisdiction to look into the illegality committed in the valuation and direct the respondent to award additional marks or direct the University to refer the answer script to a third examiner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Circular dated 13.2.2017 to contend that due to expediting of the valuation process to announce the results by 20.2.2017, probability of committing the mistake is high. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahiti and others -v- Chancellor, Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 and contended that several instances of mistakes committed -5- by the valuators cannot be ruled out. If the Authorities are of the opinion that revaluation of the answer scripts is necessary, then the Court would direct the revaluation. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is no hard and fast rule to refer/deny for revaluation of the answer scripts to a third valuator.
4. Learned counsel Sri.N.K.Ramesh, appearing for respondent-University referring to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Roshin Ram Mulakaparambath - v- Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in W.P.No.28982/2016 (DD 9.6.2016) submits that assessment made by the valuators who are experts in the field cannot be evaluated by this Court. It is immaterial whether '0' marks is awarded by the first valuator qua, some marks awarded by the second valuator.
5. It is contended that this Court in W.P.No.15042/2017 while considering the identical -6- issue has held that it is not uncommon of two different valuators awarding different marks to a question on account of perceptional difference. It is further pointed out that the order passed in W.P.No.530/2012 has been reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2803/2013 (DD 6.1.2015).
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the identical issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.28982/2016 as regards awarding of '0' marks by one valuator and some marks by the second valuator, it was held that this Court is not an expert and it would not be sitting in the armed chair of the experts to ascertain as to whether answer script of the petitioner evaluated by the valuator is proper or not and accordingly, rejected the writ petition. In W.P.No.15042/2017 this Court, after considering the judgments holding the field held thus:
-7-
"It is unrealistic to expect the assessment by two different evaluators strictly in the same manner in awarding the same marks for a particular answer. It is not uncommon to award different marks on account of perceptional difference. To certain extent, human error, perceptions, oversight is obvious in the valuation. Merely the slight difference of marks awarded by two evaluators may not call for revaluation of the paper."
7. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Jeevith C.Reddy's case is reversed holding that the order of the learned Single Judge should not be considered as a precedent in any other matter. Issuance of circular by the University to expedite the valuation process to announce the results itself would not be a ground to presume that the valuators have not applied mind. No decision can be taken on presumptions and assumptions. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahiti and others' case (supra), no doubt lays down that where the Authorities find that -8- award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, revaluation may be found necessary. The said proposition of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court would not come to the assistance of the petitioner since no such material is placed on record to establish the same. Awarding of different marks by two valuators itself would not be considered as unfair or carelessness on the part of the valuator. Hence, the prayers in the writ petition do not merit consideration and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.