Karnataka High Court
Rajiv Gandhi University vs Dr Mujeeburehman Mujahid on 8 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
REVIEW PETITION NO.384 OF 2021
IN
W.P.NO.17479 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU -41
REP BY REGISTRAR EVALUATION
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DR B NAGADIVYA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O P ROOPESH
AT PRESENT R/AT FLAT NO 105
RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL, MYSORE ROAD
KAMBIPURA, BANGALORE 560074
AND PERMANENTLY
R/OF HOUSE NO.11-15-149/1
JB COLONY, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE
SAROORNAGAR,
HYDERABAD 500035
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
POCKET No. 14, SECTOR 8
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110077
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 17479/2021 AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This review petition is in respect of a decision of this Court in W.P.No.17479/2021 dated 30.09.2021. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, which was the respondent in the writ petition, is before this Court seeking review of the said order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner- University submits that the basis for the decision of this Court is two earlier decisions in the case of DR.M.D.GOLAP HUSSAIN VS. RAJIV GANDHI 3 UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES IN W.P.NO.10365/2020 and SRI NEELESH MEHTA VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES IN W.P.NO.818/2021. Learned counsel would further submit that the other decision in the case of DR.GURUPRASAD VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, IN W.P.NO.11348/2020 and THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE VS. G.HEMALATHA AND OTHERS, - (2012) 8 SCC 568 was also noticed. Further, it is submitted that the earlier decisions which were noticed by this Court have been rendered on the premise that the petitioners before the Court were short of one mark and therefore those cases were decided in favour of the petitioner students while directing the University to round off the marks from 199 to 200. On the other hand, in the present case the petitioner had obtained 198 marks and therefore 4 the benefit granted to the students in the case noticed by this Court could not have been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of record and is required to be considered by this Court in this review petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- University draws the attention of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of ANISHA.S.M VS. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL & ORS., IN W.P.NO.5463/2021 to contend that in terms of clause 5 (1)(b) contained in the Ordinance governing 'Post Graduate including diploma and super specialty students' in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2019, provision is made for rounding off the marks while averaging the best of four total marks awarded by the evaluators from amongst the five evaluators and the same could be rounded off to the nearest value and there is no further scope for rounding off while converting the marks obtained from 5 120 marks to 100%. However, it is clarified that the decision in the case of Anisha.S.M, was in respect of Under Graduate course and while in the present case the issue is regarding post graduation students. Nevertheless, it is submitted that provisions are similar.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 students, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record. On the other hand, it is clear even from the memorandum of review petition and the comparitive table prepared by the respondent- University, that in paper No.2 the total marks awarded by the 5 evaluators adds up to 201. Further while averaging the same to 100%, it is shown as 50.25%. Learned counsel for the respondent student submits that there cannot be any provision that could take away the marks legitimately acquired by the students. The learned counsel submits that it is evident while averaging the total marks of 201 to 100%, it is shown 6 as 50.25%. The legitimately acquired marks, even as per the average i.e., 0.25, cannot be taken away by interpreting the Ordinance in such a manner that it would cause disadvantage of the student. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel that there is an error in the calculation made by the respondent- University. In paper No.2, therefore, what is required to be awarded to the respondent student is 51% and not 50% as contended in the review petition. If that is done, the student gets 199 marks and not 198 marks as contended by the University. Further, in the light of the two decisions in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta, where the benefit of one mark was granted to the students who were before this Court is legitimately granted to the respondent student also and therefore learned counsel submits that there is no merit in the review petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the review petition papers.
7
6. The error, which according to the petitioner-University, which is apparent on the face of the record is that in the present case the student had secured 198 marks out of 400 and therefore the benefit that was granted to the students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta and such other petitions being on the ground that those students were short of one mark, therefore the student in this writ petition cannot be given the same benefit as was done to those writ petitions. After consideration of the submissions at the Bar, this Court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent student that while considering the circular/notification dated 29.03.2019 in the matter of rounding off the marks, the provisions cannot be interpreted in such a manner that it would be to the disadvantage of the student. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent- 8 student. Technically speaking, going by the word of the notification, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-University that the percentage has to be rounded off to the nearest value can be interpreted as rounding off 50.25% to 50% since 50 is nearer than 51. However the golden rule of interpretation is that interpretation of a provision should be made in such a manner, especially in such cases, keeping in view the objective of the beneficial legislation. The marks legitimately obtained by a student cannot be taken away. Out of 400 marks, the respondent- student has obtained 201. While reducing the total marks obtained for 400 to 100%, the arithmetical value would be 50.25%. But this Court is one with the student when it is contended that the 0.25% is also the marks legitimately obtained by the student and at any rate same cannot be taken away. Therefore, although it is provided in the notification that while arriving at an average and 9 rounding off the same, the marks shall be rounded of to the nearest value, however, 0.25% cannot be reduced to the value which is lesser. This Court is of the considered opinion that while interpreting the said provision due regard has to be given to the intention of the legislature. It cannot be denied that the notification was issued for the benefit of the students. Therefore, while interpreting the said provision, due regard should be given to the objective and therefore the view favouring the student should be leaned towards. Going by the said opinion, 50.25% in paper No.2 could not have been reduced to 50%. Consequently, in paper No.2, the petitioner has to be rightly given 51%. If that is given, the total average mark obtained by the respondent-student is 199 marks and not 198. Consequently, when the respondent - student has also obtained 199 marks, then she is entitled for the benefit as was given to the 10 other students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta.
7. For the reasons stated above, this court proceeds to pas the following:
ORDER The review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY