Karnataka High Court
Dr. Anup Shivashankarappa Desai vs Rajiv Gandhi University 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.31294/2011, 24085/2011, 22684/2011,
19399/2011, AND 2615/2011 *(Edn)
WP No.31294/2011
BETWEEN:
DR. ANUP SHIVASHANKARAPPA DESAI
S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA DESAI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.23, SHRIGIRI NILAYA
TANK BUND ROAD
SHARAN NAGAR
GULBARGA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOGI & GOGI ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
(EVALUATION) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S G PANDIT, ADV.)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for records of the
proceedings and etc.
* Added vide chamber order dt:5.2.2013
2
WP No.24085/2011
BETWEEN:
DR SAVITHRAMMA R B
W/O DR PRAKASH
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
# 3611 8TH MAIN 5TH CROSS
MCC "B" BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-4
R/O DAVANAGERE
TQ: & DIST. DAVANAGERE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R B ANEPPANAVAR ASSTS., ADVS.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
REP BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
4TH "T" BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
BANGALORE-560041
3. BAPUJI DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DAVANAGERE
TQ. & DIST. DAVANAGERE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S G PANDIT, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the notification of ordinance governing
revaluation dated 22.3.2010 issued by R1 vide Ann-E and
etc.
WP No.22684/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMAD AYAS
S/O SRI. MOHAMAD IDRUS
3
AGED 22 YEARS,
R/A NO. 227/A, TYPE-2,
WEST COLONY, RAIL WHEEL FACTORY,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE-106 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-11,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. MATHRUSRI RAMABAI AMBEDKAR
DENTAL COLLEGE,
1/36, CLINE ROAD, COOKE TOWN,
BANGALORE-05,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. S G PANDIT, ADV. FOR R1)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the condition imposed for revaluation, in
Item No.2(ii) of the notification dated 22.3.2010 issued by R1
vide Ann-E and etc.
WP No.19399/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI ASHOK KUMAR VEERLA
S/O SRI SAMBASIVA RAO VEERLA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O JAVARANAHALLI 571 448,
BG NAGARA POST,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K N PHANINDRA, HEGDE AND RAO, ADVS.)
4
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
REP BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCE, BANGALORE-560041
3. AADICHUNCHANAGIRI INSTITUE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE (AIMS),
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
B G NAGARA, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571448 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. S G PANDIT, ADVS. FOR R1 & R2
SRI.M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADV. FOR R3)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the notification of ordinance governing
revaluation dated 22.3.2010 issued by R1 vide Ann-G and
etc.
WP No.2615/2011
BETWEEN:
SHARMA CHITRAKUMARI SUBHASHCHADNRA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O SRI SUBHASHCHANDRA SHARMA,
II BDS, SJM DENTAL COLLEGE,
CHITRADURGA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
5
2. THE REGISTRAR ( EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, 4TH "T" BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE- 41
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT , HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT( MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-01 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2
SRI.R.OMKUMAR, AGA FOR R3)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned ordinance at Ann-G dated
22.3.2010 issued by R1 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. 6
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 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- 7 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 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 8 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 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.
9
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 '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 10 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 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, 11 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 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