Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anuj Kumar Patel vs Madhya Pradesh Medical Science ... on 29 July, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.14845/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14845 of 2024
ANUJ KUMAR PATEL
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MEDICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Kabeer Paul - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
i. To direct the Respondents to call for the records of the case.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondents to get the answer sheet of Pediatrics Paper of the MBBS Final year re- checked or re-evaluated by any Expert Faculty in the light of the standard textbooks, in a transparent manner, before conducting the Re-Do exams as notified vide notification dt. 04 April 2024 as was also held in the case of Ankit Tiwari [MPHC] iii. If necessary, quash and set aside the Provisional Mark Sheet and Result of Re Verification Dt. 17.05.2024 to the extent the petitioner has been declared as failed in Pediatrics Subject (Annexure P/1 and P/7). iv. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case 2 W.P. No.14845/2024 and or direct the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioner.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a student of MBBS 4th Year (Final Part II) and is studying in Government Medical College, Datia. He appeared in the final part 2 (4th year) examination held on 28/02/2024 and results were declared on 27/03/2024. Petitioner was declared as "Compt" (which means failed) in Pediatrics paper while he passed all other subjects. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had serious doubt with regard to the marks awarded to him in respect of four questions, therefore petitioner approached the respondents thereby making an application to re-verify the result as the failure of petitioner to clear Pediatrics paper would have serious and grave repercussions on his career. It is submitted that National Medical Council has declared the result of re-verification by informing no change. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is seeking evaluation of four answers.
3. However, during the course of arguments, petitioner confined his arguments to question No.1(2) i.e. "Best Method for measuring temperature in a neonate is by: (a) Rectal (b) Oral (c) Temporal (d) Axilla". It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had marked "(a)" as correct answer, whereas that answer has been shown to be an incorrect one. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had consulted the book which was referred by the Professors in the classes and according to the said book, correct answer is Rectal, whereas no mark has been awarded to the petitioner.
4. By referring to Chapter 11 titled as "Infections and Infestations", it is submitted that the Rectal method is the most reliable site for 3 W.P. No.14845/2024 measurement of temperature with fever defined as rectal temperature of more than 300C or 100.40F and thus, it is submitted that the answer has been wrongly evaluated by the examiner.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
6. Ordinance No.50 of The First Ordinance of Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 reads as under:-
"50. Verification of Answer-Books.- The Answer-books may be scrutinized for verification of the correctness of the total of marks recorded and for verification that all answers have been assessed. However, on verification, if any answer(s) is/are found unassessed, the Vice- Chancellor shall cause such answers to be checked and the marks allotted for such answers shall be accounted towards total marks obtained by the examinee."
7. Thus, as per the Ordinance, there is no provision for revaluation and there are two options available with the students i.e. (i) re-totaling or correctness of the total of marks and (ii) for verification that all answers have been assessed and in case if it is found that if any answer(s) is/ are unchecked, then the Vice-Chancellor shall cause such answers to be checked and marks allotted for such answers shall be accounted towards total marks obtained by the examinee.
8. Although counsel for petitioner tried to develop his arguments by submitting that assessment means revaluation but this Court is unable to convince itself. If Ordinance 50 is read in its entirety, then it is clear that there are only two options i.e. re-totaling and to re-verify that all answers have been checked by the examiner or not, whereas revaluation of answer-sheet means the evaluation of answers by another expert.
4 W.P. No.14845/2024Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that there is no provision for revaluation of answer-sheets.
9. Now the next question for consideration is as to whether this Court can direct for revaluation by a Court appointed experts or not?
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52 has held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) 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; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of 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; (iii) 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; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Tripura Through The Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & 5 W.P. No.14845/2024 Ors. by order dated 6/2/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1264/2019 has held as under:-
"18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation.
19. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate 6 W.P. No.14845/2024 despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks.
20. Should the second circumstance be demonstrated to be present before the writ court, can the writ court become helpless despite the vast reservoir of power which it possesses? It is one thing to say that the absence of provision for revaluation will not enable the candidate to claim the right of evaluation as a matter of right and another to say that in no circumstances whatsoever where there is no provision for revaluation will the writ court exercise its undoubted constitutional powers? We reiterate that the situation can only be rare and exceptional."
12. Thus, it is clear that in absence of any provision for revaluation, this Court cannot direct for revaluation of the answer-sheets. However, counsel for petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3550. It is needless to mention here that against the said order, a Writ Appeal No.1232/2024 has been filed and by order dated 24/5/2024 the Division Bench of this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the order passed in the case of Anand Yadav (Supra), therefore, the petitioner would not get any assistance by order passed in the case of Anand Yadav (Supra). The counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sharinath Das Gupta Vs. Board of Secondary Education reported in 2018 (3) M.P.L.J. 76 reported in 2018 (3) MPLJ 76 and submitted that in exceptional circumstances the Court can direct for revaluation.
7 W.P. No.14845/202413. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that the book on which he has placed reliance is a recognized one. Merely by saying that the said book was being referred by the Professors in the Class is not sufficient for holding the book referred by the petitioner is a recognized one. Thus, it is held that in absence of any provision for revaluation and in absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting revaluation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
15. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.07.31 16:02:58 +05'30'