Karnataka High Court
Dr Afsal K M vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 1 June, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 6735 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR AFSAL K M
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI MUSTAFA KAMAL
R/AT APSARA MANZIL
INCHIVALA PARASSALA
TIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695502.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041.
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH
NO.82, NALLURAHALLI,
NEAR BMTC 18TH DEPOT,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR G PRABHAKAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REPLY OF THE R-1 DATED 11.03.2020 AT ANNX-B AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT RE-EVALUATION OF ANSWER
SCRIPT BEARING NO.Q.P.CODE 7371/PAEDIATRICS-TP1 AT
ANNX-C OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner being a Post Graduate student is knocking at the doors of Writ Court inter alia for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-University "to conduct revaluation of answer script bearing No. Q.P. Code- 7371/Paediatrics-TP1 at Annexure-'C'.
2. Notice to second respondent-Institution having been dispensed with, learned Senior Panel Counsel on request appearing for the respondent-University, , opposes the Writ Petition contending that the Fifth Valuator having accomplished the valuation, under the new Ordinance, there is no warrant for Court's interference, since essentially the matter relates to the domain of academics.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the student having secured sufficient marks in Practical and Theory examinations and in viva-
voce,with 50% aggregate marks could not have been failed in the entire course for want of one single mark in the Theory 3 Examination is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as the fact matrix of the petition squarely fits into the provisions of "Ordinance Governing Post Graduate including P.G. Diploma and Super Speciality Answer Script Evaluation"; Para 3(ii)a of the same reads as under:
"Deviation Valuation:-
a. Means the valuation conducted by the 5th valuator as per this Ordinance in case of deviation between the total marks awarded by any two valuators in the General Valuation, as stated in
3.(i)(a), is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper. The decimals shall not be founded off while calculating the cutoff for the deviation. The algebraic formula for the purpose of 5th valuation shall be as follows:
If the total mark awarded by the any one valuator among the four is X, and that awarded by any other among the four valuators is Y and the maximum marks prescribed is Z, then answer paper goes for the fifth valuation if (X-Y) ≥0.15 X Z.
(b) True it is that arguably there was an error in the sense that the differential/deviation of valuation exceeded 15% of the maximum cut-off marks prescribed for the paper in question; for the very reason the said answer paper was sent to Fifth Evaluator in terms of said Ordinance and accordingly the Fifth Evaluator has accomplished his valuation too; thus, the grievance of the petitioner if any, has been granted redressal by processing the same in accordance 4 with the Ordinance in question and therefore, the said grievance cannot be resurrected as a fresh cause for maintaining the Writ Petition when no complaint is made against the fifth evaluator, as such.
4. Both the counsel for the parties in support of conflicting versions banked upon the same decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan B.Lokur and Deepak Gupta reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 52, paragraphs 30,31 & 32 of which reads as under:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.5
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.
All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the 6 examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
(Emphasis is supplied by me)
5. Inner voice of the above three paragraphs of the Apex Court decision is that ordinarily Writ Courts will not undertake valuation/revaluation of the Answer Scripts since it is a matter pertaining to the domain of academicians and Courts lack expertise in the matter; in the absence of enabling Statutes/Regulations too, in an appropriate case the Writ Court may direct revaluation of Answer Scripts if the justice eminently warrants; however such cases are in a 'rare category'; sympathy and compassion do not have a role to play in matters of academic performance/assessment; therefore the contention that for want of one single mark, the student cannot be made to write all the examinations afresh, does not yield milk. The resistance of the Panel Counsel to the writ petition is rightly structured on the ratio of the decision in question.
7
6. The argument vehemently advanced by the petitioner's counsel that the enormity of error in four valuations warrants indulgence of Writ Court, is again bit difficult to countenance; true it is, that in our legal system there is no island immuned from interference of the Writ Courts; however, the grievance of the petitioner is taken care of by subjecting the answer script in question to the fifth evaluation in terms of the new Ordinance and therefore the matter should have a full stop there; a contra contention undermines the sanctity of academic process, unjustifiably as rightly pointed out by the Panel Counsel for the University. The object of the writ remedy is not to keep any process on ad infinitum, at least as a concession to the shortness of human's life. Thus no case is made out for directing the University to undertake one more valuation or revaluation of the subject Answer Script.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD