Karnataka High Court
Vamsi T N vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 16 January, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.58303/2017(EDN-EX)
BETWEEN:
VAMSI T.N.
S/O.T.V.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/A NO.83, 3RD CROSS
KATHRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
BSK 3RD STAGE, SRINIVASANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI.VENUGOPAL, ADV.)
AND:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADV.)
2
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CARRY OUT THE RE-EVALUATION
OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS PERTAINING TO THE
PHYSIOLOGY 1 Q.P. CODE IS 1077 AND PAPER 2
HAVING QP CODE 1078, MBBS AND BIO-CHEMISTRY
1 HAVING Q.P. CODE 1079 AND BIO-CHEMISTRY 2
HAVING Q.P. CODE 1080 NOTWITHSTANDING THE
AWARDING OF MARKS AS PER ANNEX-C, C1, D AND
D1 AND ETC.
THIS WP IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-University to re-evaluate the answer scripts pertaining to Physiology Paper-I having Q.P. code No.1077; Physiology Paper-II having Q.P. code No.1078; Bio-Chemistry Paper-I having Q.P. code No.1079 and Bio-Chemistry Paper-II having Q.P. code No.1080 of I year MBBS Course, notwithstanding the award of marks as per Annexures-C, C1, D and D1.
3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pursuing 2nd year MBBS course at Vaidehi Medical College, Bengaluru which is affiliated to the respondent-University. The petitioner repeated and reappeared in examination in two subjects in the 1st year MBBS Course, passing of which was essential for him to be promoted to 2nd year. That petitioner has not been able to clear Physiology subject papers 1 and 2 and Bio-Chemistry subject papers 1 and 2 in respect of which re-evaluation has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while highlighting on the regulations pertaining to the evaluation of papers by the respondent-University pertaining to MBBS course contended that although there is minimum of two evaluations of each paper by evaluators of the respective subjects, in the event, if there is difference of more than 15% of marks, 3rd evaluator would be appointed to evaluate the paper and 4 subsequently, average of best of two evaluations would be considered for the purpose of allotting total marks. He further contended that though such system may be of some benefit to the students, it is not a fool proof system. He submitted that there is no scheme of moderation and in the circumstances, the students would be at the receiving end of evaluators who are stringent in awarding marks. That there may be second or third evaluation of the answer scripts by respective evaluators in the subjects, but benefit is not meted to the students. It is his contention that the University can evolve a better system of evaluation which would be beneficial to the students.
4. Drawing my attention to Annexures-C, C1, D and D1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that award of marks by the first and second evaluators is distinct and wherever there is difference of more than 15%, the third evaluator would be appointed to evaluate 5 the answer scripts. On comparison of the three evaluations, he submits that there is no parity in the evaluation and that the award of marks is totally distinct in respect of each question. As a result, the students would not be benefited by evaluating the questions by the respondent-University. He submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner herein has failed in the subjects by 2 marks, this is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner and direction may be issued to the respondent-University to re-evaluate the answer scripts in respect of the aforesaid four papers.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University by placing reliance on the Notification dated 15-06-2012 pertaining to valuation of marks and final computation of results in respect of the MBBS course submitted that the Ordinance Governing Multiple Valuation have come into effect from 6 15-06-2012. Initially, the University had a single evaluation of the subjects, thereafter, by experience and on experiment and having regard to the best interest of the students, the Ordinance Governing Multiple Valuation in the form of a Notification has been issued. He submitted that having regard to Ordinance-4, the petitioner has had the benefit of 3rd evaluation as there was difference of more than 15% of marks between the 1st and 2nd evaluations. Hence there has been compliance of Ordinance-4 and this Court cannot interfere with the same.
6. Annexures-C, C1, D and D1 are the statements of Candidate Marks Report in respect of the aforesaid four papers which clearly indicate that in respect of one paper, i.e. Physiology Paper-I, the answer script of the petitioner has been subjected to 3rd evaluation whereas in respect of other three papers, there had been only two evaluations. Two evaluations of an answer script is 7 a minimum that has been stipulated under the Ordinance-4. It is only when the difference between two evaluations is more than 15%, the third evaluator would evaluate the paper. Thereafter, the average marks obtained in best of two evaluations including the marks obtained in the third evaluation may be considered for the purpose of declaring total marks.
7. Ordinance 4 reads as under:
4.PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE VALUATION:
(i) All the answer-scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is > 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.
(ii) All the answer-scripts which are subjected for four valuations wherein the difference in award of marks between FOUR valuations is > 15%, shall be referred to FIFTH examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.8
(iii) The average of BEST OF TWO OUT OF THREE VALUATION marks or the average of BEST OF FOUR OUT OF FIVE VALUATION MARKS as the case may be shall be considered for the final computation of the results.
(iv) The marks awarded and the results declared after considering this notification shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained.
8. On reading of the above, it is clear that the said system is devised, keeping in mind the best interest of the students. The University has not restricted evaluation of answer scripts to a single evaluation and that there is always a second evaluation of every paper, which has been evaluated by one expert in the field. If the difference between the marks obtained in two evaluations is more than 15%, then the paper shall be subjected to third evaluation. The University in its wisdom has stated that 15% is a difference which has to be reckoned for the purpose of subjecting the paper for 9 3rd evaluation. This Court cannot question the University as to why the difference of 15% is considered and not more or less in the absence of there being any challenge to the Ordinance. Therefore, in the circumstances, the University has ultimately considered the best of two evaluations out of three valuation for final computation of results. Therefore there is an inbuilt benefit for students which is noticed in the Ordinance-4.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any patent error in the evaluation, in the sense, any particular answer has not been evaluated or any such error or inconsistency in the evaluation of each paper, except stating that award of marks in respect of one question by one evaluator may be different from award of marks by another evaluator, which is inherently bound to be so. Having regard to the nature of evaluation devised by the University which 10 is a two-fold evaluation mandatorily to be complied in respect of each paper of each student in each subject. There bound to be variance in awarding of marks as the evaluations are done by different experts in the field. It is easy to say that there is discrepancy in awarding of marks or variance in awarding of marks and that it is not identical or similar in nature, but what is significant to note is the evaluation of the answer scripts being done by two different experts, there is bound to be difference in awarding of marks in respect of each answer written by the student to a particular question in a particular subject.
10. One cannot expect identical marks to be given by two different experts in the field. Such a thing cannot be expected by the students. In fact, if that is so, there was no need for having two mandatory evaluations as a matter of rule in respect of each answer script of each student. In order to avoid any kind of arbitrariness or 11 distinct attitudinal approach in evaluation of answer scripts and for the benefit of the students, respondent- University has devised a dual evaluation of each answer script. The manner in which the student approaches the question and presents the answer is also an important factor to be considered while allotting marks by the experts and it is not the length of the answer or size of the letters, it is the substance that is written in the answer script which matters. In the absence of there being non application of mind or arbitrary manner of awarding marks in the sense that the marks awarded are not similar or even near to the figure to each other, petitioner cannot seek fresh evaluation of the papers in the absence of there being any Regulation to that effect. As already noted, when two different experts are evaluating the same answers of the same student, there is bound to be difference in awarding of marks. Such difference, in the instant case cannot be held to be a patent error or an arbitrary exercise of power. In the 12 circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for by her. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*