Karnataka High Court
Dr. Haroon Adoni vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 11 April, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
WP No. 4448 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4448 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. HAROON ADONI
S/O LATE KHAJA MOINUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO 302, SAHARA RESIDENCY
3RD FLOOR, MODEL COLONY
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,YASHVANATHPUR,
BENGALURU - 560 022
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUMANA BALIGA M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 041
Digitally
REP BY REGISTRAR EVALUATION
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
... RESPONDENT
Location:
High Court of (BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR R .,ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE MARKS AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER FOR THE EXAMINATION IN THE DISCIPLINE OFMD
PATHOLOGY (RS-3) NOVEMBER 2022 CONDUCTED BY THE
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES BY
ROUNDING OFF THE MARKES FORM 49.25 PERCENTAGE TO 50
PERCENTAGE AS PER THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE COURT
IN RP NO. 384/21 ANNEXURE-G & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 4448 of 2023
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Smt.Sumana Baliga.M., appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel Sri Girish Kumar R., appearing for respondent - University.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after completing his graduation in MBBS he took admission to Post Graduate Degree in the discipline of MD Pathology in ESISC Medical College & PGIMSR, Bangalore for 2019-2022 batch. He took regular PG examination in May 2022 and also in November 2022 the supplementary examination. He had done extremely well in the said examination and he was confident of completing the same with good marks. During December 2022 the results were announced in the official website of the respondent - University. To his shock and surprise he failed by three marks and he was awarded 197 marks out of 400 marks for theory papers. In view of petitioner having secured 197/400 marks the average was 49.25 and he was declared as failed.
3. Immediately thereafter petitioner applied for digital evaluation and he was shocked on perusal of marks allotted to him by the individual evaluator. The evaluation was erratic and -3- WP No. 4448 of 2023 marks awarded were not consistent. He had secured 51, 48, 52 and 49 marks respectively for the four papers out of total 100 marks each.
4. Petitioner immediately rushed to the respondent - University and requested them to look into the matter and to extend the benefits of rounding off the marks, which was given to in the previous batch in compliance of the direction from this Court in WP No.11348/2020 and other similar writ petitions, wherein similarly situated students who have obtained marks in an average of 49.25% were rounded off to 50% as per the Ordinance and to declare him as PASS. The respondent - University refused to extend the same to the petitioner and rejected the same.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the evaluation of the PG course is governed by the 'Ordinance governing Post Graduation Including Diploma and super Specialty Valuation' dated 29.03.2019. According to 4(b) of the said Ordinance for passing the examination, the student should secure 50% in the theory examination in aggregate and 50% in the practical plus viva examinations.
-4-WP No. 4448 of 2023
6. Petitioner contends that similarly placed students, who had secured average of 49.75%, approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent - University in WP No.11348/2020, wherein a direction was issued, which reads as follows:
".. .. .. Since petitioner has secured 49.75% marks, the said figure has to be rounded off to the next whole and that will be 50%. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds, the petitioner's marks in theory examination at 49.75% stands rounded off to the next whole, ie, 50% and consequently the respondent - University shall declare him 'passed' and issue the necessary result sheet accordingly. Time for compliance is four weeks."
7. Based on the aforesaid order / direction issued in WP No.11348/2020, the respondent - University placed the matter before the Syndicate meeting, which was held on 12.11.2020 and the Syndicate had discussed the aspect of rounding off the marks in detail and it was decided by the Syndicate that marks that is awarded should benefit the students and opined by the Members of the Syndicate to exercise its option prospectively -5- WP No. 4448 of 2023 and accordingly students similarly placed should get benefit of the same.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation across the globe, which was largely affected in India, the academic study of the petitioner was disturbed and college could not conduct regular classes during first wave from April 2020 till December 2020. Apart from this, it is the case of the petitioner that the PG students were put on regular duty for a continuous period of 7 days and gave them a break of 7 days and so on. In view of COVID-19 emergencies and there was limited scope for exposure they were also put to attend other type of case.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to placing the order passed by this Court before the Syndicate Meeting held on 12.11.2020, the Syndicate came to a conclusion to round off the marks at evaluator level, round of marks after taking average of 4+1 valuations and rounding off the marks after taking total average of marks with prospective effect to benefit the students.
-6-WP No. 4448 of 2023
10. It is the case of the petitioner that since he secured 197 marks out of 400 marks aggregate theory marks as 49.25%, the respondent rounded off his marks from 49.25% to the nearest value which is 49% and doing so, the respondent deducted one mark. He further contends that this action of the respondent - University is illegal and against settled principles of law.
11. Petitioner contends that in view of the inaction on the part of the respondent - University, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of present writ petition for non-application of mind by the respondent - University for not applying the methodology as per the Ordinance, directions of this Court and also the decision of the Syndicate and thereby declared the petitioner as failed.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - University vehemently contends that there is no wrong in the decision and action taken by the respondent - University in awarding the marks as obtained by the petitioner. He further contends that as pleaded by the petitioner himself in para-5 of the writ petition which clearly evidences that the petitioner has -7- WP No. 4448 of 2023 secured marks of 51.25 in paper-I rounded of to average of 51 marks, 45.25 in paper-II rounded of to average of 45 marks, 51.5 in paper-III rounded of to average of 52 marks and 49 in paper-IV rounded of to average of 49 marks. He further contends that in view of the above the respondent - University has rounded of the marks obtained by the petitioner to the nearest value and therefore, it cannot be considered as illegal or arbitrary on their part.
13. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent - University.
14. It is seen in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having secured average 51.25 marks in Paper-I to be rounded off to 52 and in Paper-II petitioner secured 45.25 marks which requires to be rounded off to 46 for consideration of the average marks of the petitioner.
15. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of DR. GURUPRASAD vs RAJIV GNADHI UNIVERISITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, in W.P. No.11348/2020 DD 20.10.2020, wherein this Court has rounded of the marks taking into consideration of Paragraph 5(I)(b) of the Subject -8- WP No. 4448 of 2023 Ordinance, which clearly explains that 'the average of the best four total marks for the paper awarded by five evaluators, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for final computation of the results.'
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in Review Petition No.384 of 2021 arising out of W.P. No.17479 of 2021, DD 08.03.2022, wherein under similar circumstances, held as follows:
" 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 -9- WP No. 4448 of 2023 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 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
- 10 -WP No. 4448 of 2023
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 other students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta".
17. Under these circumstances, the two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner are clearly applicable to the case on hand. The marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper-I at 51.25 and Paper-II at 45.25 requires to be rounded off to 52 and 46 respectively. Thereby the total average marks would be 199 out of 400 instead of 197, then petitioner would get an average marks of 49.75%, which
- 11 -WP No. 4448 of 2023
requires to be rounded off to 50%, since the value as held by this Court in Review Petition, supra, the golden rule of interpretation to be adopted keeping in view the object of the beneficial Legislation always in favour of the students.
18. In view of the above, the writ petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed.; (2) The writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent - University to round off the marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper-I at 51.25% to 52% and Paper-II at 45.25% to 46% in the examination of the discipline of MD Pathology (RS-3) conducted November 2022 by them. Further, to round off the total average marks to 199 instead of 197 out of 400 secured by the petitioner, then in total the average marks of 49.75% to 50%.;
- 12 -
WP No. 4448 of 2023(3) The respondent - University is directed to issue fresh marks card as stated above to the petitioner forthwith.;
(4) The respondent - University shall complete the aforesaid process within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39