Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakansha Singh Gehlot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 2nd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 28067 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AAKANSHA SINGH GEHLOT D/O SHRI SITARAM
SINGH GEHLOT, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O ROOM NO 28 GIRLS
HOSTEL NO. 1 GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MPS RAGHUVANSHI - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI D.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MADHYA PRADESH MEDICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR (MP) THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR.
2. THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, DATIA
THROUGH ITS DEAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NIDHI PATANKAR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI AMIN KHAN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
AND SHRI B.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is 2 preferred by the petitioner who is a student of MBBS Course Batch 2021 at Government Medical College, Datia seeking reevaluation/rechecking of her Answer Script by an Expert Examiner.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a student of MBBS Course Batch 2021. She appeared in MBBS First Professional Examination held in February, 2023. Result of petitioner in the aforementioned examination was declared by the University on 30-05-2023 and after result petitioner herself found that she obtained 41 marks in First Paper of Human Anatomy and 51 marks in Second paper of Human Anatomy. She is required to secure 100 marks to pass aforesaid subject, therefore, she was short by 8 marks.
3. As per ordinance No.6/2014 framed by Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University, Jabalpur (respondent No.1 herein) regarding conduct of examinations, petitioner is entitled to avail the grace marks as per rule 59 of the Ordinance.
4. Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the answer script under Right to Information Act, 2005 and ultimately got answer script in October, 2023. On perusal of answer scrip, petitioner found that for question No.3(e), 3(f), 4(a), 4(f) and 4(j) in paper No.1, zero mark has been awarded by the evaluator while checking the answer script. It is the grievance of petitioner that answers given in answer script were right but they were either not seen or they were not properly evaluated. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
5. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 petitioner that he very well understands the limitation in the cases of re-evaluation. However, in the present case some error crept into evaluation of answer script of petitioner. She is a meritorious student and performed her paper very well. However evaluation was not upto the mark which cost her a full year. To avoid such setback it is imperative that direction be given for reevaluation of answer script again through a subject expert. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 and referred para 30 and different sub paras to demonstrate that it is subjective satisfaction of the Court specially in those cases where Statute/Rule/Regulation do not provide re-evaluation.
6. Learned senior counsel also tried to explain the Division Bench's judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) dated 07-09-2022 in Writ Petition No.7654 of 2022 (Ankur Sharma & Ors. Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University and one another) and referred para 5 of the said judgment to submit that learned Division Bench has culled out certain exigencies like Bright students, In case of injustice, In the case of Mathematics and Science and If there are gross discrepancies found in the answer book, then it is always open to the Court to re-evaluate the performance.
7. Per contra, Ms. Patankar, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 University opposed the prayer. According to her, contention of petitioner that evaluation of her performance has not been carried out correctly is misplaced. All questions are checked by examiner and thereafter came to the conclusion about her 4 performance. Learned counsel referred the fact that petitioner appeared in supplementary examination of first professional MBBS examination in the month of July, 2023 in accordance with the rules of National Medical Commission (NMC) and again she was declared failed in the subject of Anatomy. She suppressed this fact and filed this petition and tried to get an order of re- evaluation from this Court.
8. All questions were checked. Evaluator either put cross mark (x) for incorrect answer or put an endorsement "Seen" as per his expertise/discretion. Here, in the present case, in place of "Seen" cross (x) has been put for the wrong answer and then zero mark was given for those answers which were not correct.
9. It is further submitted that result of each student was declared after double evaluation as per Ordinance of the University so that no scope of doubt or discrepancy exists regarding evaluation. Even otherwise first Ordinance promulgated under Section 39 of Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam nowhere contemplates re-evaluation therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief including receiving grace marks. Even answers are not correct.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer made by the petitioner's counsel and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
12. This is a case of reevaluation. Petitioner is MBBS student of First Professional and suffered in Anatomy subject. Subject of Anatomy is basic subject and therefore, one has to be proficient 5 into it. She not only suffered in main examination but in supplementary examination also, she suffered therefore, contention of petitioner that she is a meritorious student so as to attract spirit of order of learned Division Bench passed in the case of Ankur Sharma & Others (supra), is not attracted. Learned Division Bench has culled out certain principles which can be summarized as under:-
i. Where student is bright.
ii. When injustice have been done.
iii. Reevaluation can be specially in the cases of Mathematics
and Science.
iv. If Court finds gross discrepancies in the answer book then
reevaluation can be ordered.
13. This view derives strength from the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education Vs. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603.
14. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others (supra), the Apex Court culled out certain principles which are as under:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. 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; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of 6 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;
30.3. 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;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
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, 7 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 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."
815. After going through the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Ran Vijay Singh and others (supra) and D. Suvankar (supra) it appears that facts of the case do not satisfy the principles laid down in the judgments of Apex Court as well as in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court.
16. Even learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner took this Court to various questions posed by Examination authority and answers given by the petitioner but answers do not satisfy the requirement of standard answers prima facie. Therefore, on close scrutiny from any angle no case for interference is made out.
17. It is settled in law that Court is not a "Body of Experts" and final answer keys are being prepared by the body of experts, therefore, scope of interference is limited as held in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 4 SCC 452 till Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. (2019) 1 MPLJ 689, Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A.581 of 2017) as well as judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mayank Dwivedi Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission order dated 25.10.2023 passed in Writ Appeal 1728/2023. Therefore, scope of interference is constricted.
18. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, no manifest illegality or palpable perversity is reflected. No cogent ground has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner to show indulgence in the case in hand. Thus, no case for interference is made out under the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner has to work hard to 9 ameliorate herself in medical profession. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
Anil* JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2024.04.23
11:19:31
+05'30'