Karnataka High Court
Sri Soyab Habibani S/O Habib Habibani vs Rajiv Gandhi Univedrsity Of Health ... on 17 January, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NOS.40747 TO 40748 OF 2011
C/W WP NOS.40734/2011 & 40750/2011, 40733/2011,
40732/2011 AND 40731/2011
WP NOS.40747-40748/2011
BETWEEN :
1. SRI SOYAB HABIBANI S/O HABIB HABIBANI
AGE: 21 YEARS
STUDING IN SUSHRUTHA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, NO.23
PAPAIAH GARDEN, DIAGONAL ROAD,
BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 85
2. SRI PAVAN KUMAR
S/O SRI OMVEAR SINGH BHATI
AGE: 22 YEARS
STUDING IN SUSHRUTHA AYURVEDIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL,
NO.23, PAPAIAH GARDEN, DIAGONAL ROAD,
BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 85 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SUSHRUTHA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
NO.23, PAPAIAH GARDEN
DIAGONAL ROAD, BSK II STAGE
2
BANGALORE 560 085
BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1
R2 - NOTICE D/W)
WP Nos.40734/2011 & 40750/2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ARUN RAVI M S/O SRI P K RAVINDRAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
STUDYING IN SRI SRI COLLEGE OF
AYURVEDIC SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE, BANGALORE-82
2. KUM ATHULYA K J D/O SRI JEEVANLAL K P
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
STUDYING IN SRI SRI COLLEGE OF
AYURVEDIC SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE,
BANGALORE-82 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SRI SRI COLLEGE OF AYURVEDIC
SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM, KANAKAPURA ROAD
UDAYAPURA, POST OFFICE
BANGALORE-560082
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1
R2 - NOTICE D/W)
3
WP No.40733/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI JISHNU C S/O SRI VJIAYAN C
AGE: 21 YEARS
STUDYING IN SRI SRI COLLEGE OF
AYURVEDIC SCICENCE & RESERACH
21ST KM KANAKAPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SRI SRI COLLEGE OF AYURVEDIC
SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM KANAKPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1)
WP No.40732/2011
BETWEEN:
KUM SETHULAKSHMI V R
D/O SRI V.K RAMACHANDRAN
AGE: 21 YEARS
STUDYING IN SRI SRI COLLEGE OF
AYURVEDIC SCIENCE & RESERACH
21ST KM KANAKAPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
4
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SRI SRI COLLEGE OF AYURVEDIC
SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM KANAKPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1
R2 - NOTICE D/W)
WP No.40731/2011
BETWEEN:
KUM.ATHIRA K.M.
D/O SRI.K.C.MOHANAN
AGE: 22 YEARS
STUDYING IN SRI SRI COLLEGE OF
AYURVEDIC SCIENCE & RESERACH
21ST KM KANAKAPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. SRI SRI COLLEGE OF AYURVEDIC
SCIENCE & RESEARCH
21ST KM KANAKPURA ROAD,
UDAYAPURA POST OFFICE
BANGALORE 560 082
5
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1
R2 - NOTICE D/W)
---
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the University to re-consider
the matter and to introduce the challenge valuation system
as is explained in Annexure-B vide notification dated
14.07.2008 and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
In these set of petitions petitioners have sought for a direction to re-introduce the challenge valuation system on the ground that there may be possibility of erratic valuation which would cause substantial hardship to petitioners and interested persons. As such, they have sought for quashing of the notification dated 22.3.2010 at Annexure-D which imposes condition of difference of 15% for seeking re- valuation and also regarding policy of challenge valuation.
2. According to the petitioners, the system that is being introduced is to go for re-valuation only if there is a difference of 15% marks between the two re-valuers and taking away the chance which was afforded by way of 6 challenge valuation has to be done away with and a direction shall be issued to the University to come back with the system of re-valuation and also challenge valuation as it was in existence.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, to avail the benefit of re-valuation, there should be a difference of 15 marks, which is arbitrary as there is a possibility that a candidate would get good marks on such re- valuation and it would be benefitting in such contingencies where he would be in need of 1 or 2 marks and if such an opportunity is afforded, if there is erratic valuation though there is difference of 15 marks or not, then the candidate would be saved and also he would be promoted to the next academic year or would be declared as successful. Instead of bringing the criteria of 15% difference, to go for challenge valuation they have sought to do away with the resolution of the Academic Council and to introduce the pattern of re- valuation which was prevailing, in the interest of justice. Keeping the margin of 15% difference in marks to seek for re- valuation would cause hardship and injustice to the candidates. He also submitted that the provision for 7 challenge valuation that was there in existence by paying a fee of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,500/- on UG and PG courses, respectively also is doing injustice and hence, he has sought for writ of mandamus to restore the earlier system of re- valuation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University, while producing the resolution passed by the Academic Council and deliberations thereon passed on 4.12.2009, submitted that to overcome the situation that would be suffered by a candidate, valuation would be not be done by single valuer but it would be valued by two valuers and if there is difference of 15 marks by the two valuation, automatically the said paper would be subjected to third valuation and result of third valuation would be the final decision. Normally, that would be the advantageous and beneficial to the candidate. That is the crux of the decision being taken by the Academic Council and that is also being resolved by way of notification passed on the deliberations made by the Academic Council and ordinance being passed governing multiple valuation, by order dated 15.6.2012. He also submitted that in order to overcome the situation of 8 erratic valuation, same paper being subjected to two valuations by two valuers would yield better result and would maintain the uniformity. This cannot be called arbitrary or as erratic decision taken by the University. Rather it is a policy decision taken after due deliberations. Since in the process of making policy itself a comprehensive procedure is being provided for two valuations, it could avoid any error or erratic valuation and a candidate would be benefitted by such procedure being adopted. As such, to avoid innumerable complaints on such cases while following such procedure, there may not be much scope for re-valuation or challenge valuation, as such the same is being adopted which is a policy decision approved by the Academic Council. These writ petitions are filed praying to allow the re-valuation as it was in existence earlier and also providing for challenge valuation does not stand to reason in the context and accordingly, counsel has sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the University has also referred to paragraph 18 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 in the matter of 9 'J.K.BHARATI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.', which reads as under:
"18. In the light of what we have stated above, the constitutionality of the impugned regulations has to be adjudged only by a three- fold test, namely, (1) whether the provisions of such regulations fall within the scope and ambit of the power conferred by the statute on the delegate; (2) whether the rules/regulations framed by the delegate are to any extent inconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment and lastly (2) whether they infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution. We have already `held that the High Court was in error in holding that the provisions of cl. (3) of Regn. 104 do not serve the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and are ultra vires on the ground of their being in excess of the regulation-making power conferred by S.36."
6. It appears that the practice of valuation, re-valuation and challenge valuation was invoked in the process of change in the pattern of valuation method and also as a trial and error method. After several decades, a decision is being 10 taken by the Universities and Institutions to adopt the method of valuation from time to time as is found feasible and proper. If the policy decision is being taken to adopt a system as now invoked and if there is any grievance against such a decision being taken by majority of Council Members, then necessarily as a matter of law and social change, that needs re-consideration. The Courts must have restraint in exercising power of judicial review while reviewing policy decisions unless such changed decisions being taken in the process of law making or policy making are found arbitrary. In this regard, efforts would be made by the pressured groups to enlighten the decision making authorities and to pressurize the system to come out with new policy decision or to continue the prevailing system and that would form the base for modification of method being adopted, which could not be done through judicial process.
7. In the circumstances, if the petitioners have got any grievance and there is any ambiguity according to them, same could be placed before the University and they can move University bodies for decision to be revised or modified or for a new decision to be taken in this regard. Attempt 11 could be made by the petitioners or similar placed persons seeking to modify the system or for a new policy decision to be taken or to continue the system that was in existence earlier.
8. With the above observation and with liberty to the petitioners to move the concerned authority expressing their grievance petitions are disposed of and it is for the Authority to take a decision in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV