Karnataka High Court
Kumari R. Shubha Sangeetha vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 25 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR23, 1999(2)KARLJ656, AIR 1999 KARNATAKA 49, 1999 (1) KANTLD 539, (1999) ILR (KANT) 23, (1999) 2 KANT LJ 656
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER
1. This writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the prayer insofar as it relates to revaluation of the answer scripts.
2. The petitioner Kumari R. Shubha Sangeetha, secured a seat for admission to the I Year MBBS Course for the academic year 1996-97 and took admission to Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellur, which was affiliated to the University of Mysore. That after the commencement of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act of 1994 which came into force from 1-6-1996, all the medical colleges and autonomous bodies insofar as the subject of Health Sciences which were under the control of University of Mysore, University of Bangalore, University of Karnatak, University of Mangalore, University of Gulbarga and Kuvempu University were deemed to have been affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). The University held examinations for I Year MBBS Course for the academic year 1996-97 during the month of May, 1998 in which as many as 2071 students including the appellant appeared for the examination. After the results were declared, 638 candidates including the appellant failed in the examination either in the subject of Anatomy or Biochemistry.
3. The appellant was found failed in two subjects viz., Anatomy and Biochemistry. The failed students demanded the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences authorities to provide for revaluation, retotalling and supply of photostat copies of their answer scripts. The prayer of the appellant and many other students came to be rejected.
4. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences by its notification dated 14-10-1996 adopted the Regulations made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 with certain modifications by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 62 of the Act which came into force from the academic year 1996-97. That all the medical colleges which were affiliated then to the other Universities provided for retotalling and revaluation of the answer scripts of the MBBS examination and have been in existence for several years. But, for the issue of modified regulations by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences under Section 62 of the Act, those regulations framed by the different Universities providing for retotalling and revaluation would have been in force and the students would have had the benefit of those regulations in respect of the examinations conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. That as the benefit of revaluation was not provided, a batch of students of the I Year MBBS Course filed writ petitions, in which, the appellant is also one of the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 21220 of 1998, wherein they have questioned the notification dated 14-10-1996 issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and for issue of directions to the University to provide revaluation and retotalling and for such other reliefs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the prayer of the students for revaluation of answer scripts. Being aggrieved of the said order, only this appellant has come up with this appeal questioning the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. N. Devadas firstly contended that the appellant obtained admission to I Year MBBS Course for the academic year 1996-97 at Adichunchanagiri College of Medical Sciences as per the seat allotted by the Common Entrance Test Cell (CET). The appellant has also appeared for the I Year MBBS Examination which was held by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences during the month of May, 1998. When the results were published on 11-6-1998, it was found that out of the 2086 students appeared for the Examination, 610 students failed in Biochemistry. The appellant was found to have failed in two subjects viz., Anatomy and Biochemistry, which she came to know after she received the Statement of Marks as per Annexure-A. The learned Counsel further contended that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has also framed regulations by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 62 of the Act. It has adopted certain regulations of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 with certain modifications. From a reading of Section 62, it enables the appellant to have revaluation of the answer scripts in view of the adoption of the rules that were in existence then before all the medical colleges were affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Under the said regulations, it was provided for revaluation and retotalling. It was for the first time that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences did not provide for revaluation and retotalling of the answer scripts. He further contended that the revaluation ordinance of 1993 issued by the Bangalore University provides for revaluation. When the Regulations were adopted by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 62 by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, denial of the right accrued is opposed to the principles of natural justice and the appellants were in "legitimate expectation" for revaluation. He further submitted that the Ordinance of 1993 as well as the Ordinance of 1998 are part of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act. Therefore, he is entitled for revaluation according to the scope of Section 62 of the Act. He nextly contended that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has framed Examination Manual by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 35(2)(d) read with Section 10 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act. That clause (11) of the Examination Manual clearly provides and authorises the Registrar (Evaluation) to arrange for retotalling or revaluation of valued answer scripts on request of the candidates. In that view of the matter that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is bound to provide for revaluation. On the basis of the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the finding of the learned Single Judge insofar as not providing for revaluation and retotalling of answer scripts by allowing this appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents firstly contended that Section 62 of the Act itself makes clear that unless and until the previous regulations of other Universities were adopted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the petitioner cannot seek the relief of revaluation or retotalling. It is only subject to such adoption by the authorities concerned, have to follow the procedure. He secondly contended that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has issued a notification as per Annexure-B, dated 14-10-1996 adopting certain regulations with certain modifications. The regulations framed with certain modifications do not provide for revaluation or retotalling. Therefore, the appellant, as a matter of right cannot seek for revaluation. It is thirdly contended that Annexure-E is only the Examination Manual which does not confer power on the Registrar (Evaluation). It only prescribes the procedure to do certain acts. But, in the absence of clear provisions for revaluation under the Act, the same cannot be provided. Therefore, the Examination Manual notification dated 24-5-1997 also does not come to the aid of the appellant. That too it is in case of necessity (SOS). He lastly contended that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is an autonomous body and the option is given to the Vice-Chancellor whether to act with the regulations that were then prevailing in other Universities or not. When the Act does not provide for any revaluation or retotalling, no relief can be granted to the appellant and it is the intention of the legislation that has to be considered. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision in K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty and Sons and Company v State of Madras. Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that since the Act nowhere provides for revaluation, retotalling or grace marks, the question of granting the prayer to the appellant does not arise. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. In the light of the above contentions, the points for consideration that arise are:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of revaluation or retotalling of answer scripts under the previous regulations of other Universities?
2. Whether the said regulations for revaluation or retotalling of answer scripts are deemed to be in force by virtue of the provisions of Section 62 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act though not adopted?
8. It is not in dispute that the MBBS Course connected insofar as it relates to Health Sciences which were under the control of other six Universities established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 came to be separated on the establishment of the University under the name and style of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences superseding the other Acts of other Universities in the State. The Legislature with the intention of bringing out an uniform pattern of education in the field of Medical Sciences, the State of Karnataka established the University insofar as it relates to degree in Health Sciences from the academic year of 1994, wherein, all the Medical Colleges and autonomous institutions of Health Sciences are deemed to have been affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Thus from the preamble of the Act, it is clear that a separate University, for Health Sciences came to be established. It is after the enactment of the Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, all the medical colleges or institutions of Health Sciences which were earlier affiliated to the other Universities are deemed to be admitted or affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. The Act also provides for continuance of Statutes and Ordinances etc., which were made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 subject to such" adoptions or modifications. Section 62 reads thus:
"62. Continuance of statutes, ordinances etc.:
Until Statutes, Ordinances and Rules are made under appropriate provisions of this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules which were made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be made therein by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Chancellor obtained through the Government, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules made under the appropriate provisions of this Act".
9. Section 62 deals with the powers of the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Chancellor insofar as application of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations framed therein under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. If such Statutes or Ordinances were to have been adopted with the approval of the Chancellor and if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, such Ordinances will have to be followed for the purpose of regulating effective functioning of the University. Thereby, it is clear that it is only in case the Statutes or Ordinances were to have been adopted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, then it is open to contend that the University is governed or has to follow the Ordinances that were prevailing under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. It is also necessary to stress that in the Act, it is specifically stated that "this Act shall subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be". The word 'shall' makes clear that it is only if the Statutes or Ordinances were to have been adopted, then applying such Statutes, Ordinances or modifications does arise. In the case on hand, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 62, the University has issued a notification dated 14-10-1996 adopting MBBS Regulations of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 with certain modifications. The notification dated 14-10-1996 reads thus:
"RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Jayanagar, General Hospital Complex, 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41 Ref. No. ACA/269/REG/96-97 Dt: 14-10-1996 NOTIFICATION Ref: Government Letter No. HFW 380 MSF dated 4-10-1996 In exercise of the powers conferred on her under Section 62 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to adopt the MBBS Regulations made under Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, with certain modifications as given in the schedule hereto annexed, as Regulations of this Health University.
The certified Regulations as above has received the assent of the Chancellor on 24-9-1996. These Regulations will come into force from the academic year 1996-97.
By Order Sd/-
(Prof. K.N. VENKATAKRISHNA RAO) Registrar".
10. It is clear the said regulations came into force from the academic year 1996-97 providing for (1) Admissions of Eligibility, (2) Duration of Course, (3) Academic Terms, (4) Attendance, (5) Period of training Courses of Study and Examinations to be passed, (6) Scheme of Examination-Subjects and Marks, (7) Migration/Transfer of Candidates, (8) Submission of Laboratory Record Note Books, (9) Internal Assessment, (10) Eligibility for Examination and (11) Results.
11. That on a reading of the Regulations covering MBBS Degree programme which came into force by virtue of the notification dated 14-10-1996 that nowhere it is provided either for revaluation or for retotalling and it is manifest that the intention of the University is not to provide for revaluation or for retotalling and thereby it has not adopted the whole of the Regulations of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 to provide the benefit of revaluation or retotalling to the students who have failed in the examination.
12. After such regulations were framed by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 which came into force from the academic year 1996-97, it conducted the examinations for I Year MBBS students during the month of May, 1998 wherein this appellant is one among others who appeared for the examination. That on publication of the results, she was found failed in Anatomy and Biochemistry and out of 2086 students appeared for the examination, 610 have failed in Biochemistry. Therefore, this appellant and others sought for the revaluation or for retotalling and the same was rejected by the University on the ground that the Regulations of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences do not provide for revaluation or retotalling of answer scripts.
Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on Annexure-D Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS), Modified Current Regulation (MCR), 1990 for the academic year 1991-92. It is the Modified Current Regulation (MCR) of 1990 of the University of Mysore which came into effect from the academic year 1991-92 which provides for admission of students to Medical Course, the period of training that the students have to undergo phase by phase till the completion of the entire course of study and the said regulations to be in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India from time to time in the implementation of the training programme. These regulations also provide for the transitory provisions for those who have undergone MBBS Course of study prior to 1991-92 under different schemes and they are permitted to complete the examinations under the Modified Regulations of 1990 Scheme for a further period of 2 years and thereupon they were permitted to appear for the examination under the new existing scheme.
We have carefully perused the whole of the Modified Current Regulations (MCR), 1990 of the University of Mysore which have no bearing on the facts of the present case nor the regulations do speak anything about the evaluation of the answer scripts. The appellant herein who had appeared for the I Year MBBS Course from Adichunchanagiri Medical College was then affiliated to the Mysore University and in view of the fact that all the Medical Colleges under the different Universities were affiliated with the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences with effect from the commencement of the Act, Annexure-D, the Modified Current Regulations (MCR), 1990 also do not come to the rescue of the appellant.
The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly relied on the notification issued by the Bangalore University dated 16-11-1993 providing for revised Ordinance regarding the revaluation of the answer scripts and contended that under the Revaluation Ordinance, 1993, it was provided for revaluation of the answer scripts and by virtue of the transitory provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of revaluation. In the Revised Ordinance governing the revaluation of answer scripts (Revaluation Ordinance, 1993), Clause (1) reads thus:
"The application for revaluation (review) of answer scripts of Maximum Marks of 100 or less may be submitted in the prescribed proforma so as to reach the University within 10 days of the receipt of the marks card by the College through the Principal of the concerned College/Director of Correspondence Course. The application for revaluation (review) shall be accompanied by a challan for having remitted the following fees per paper:
(i) B.A./B.Sc./B. Com. RS. 100/-
(ii) Law/Education/Phy. Edn. Rs. 200/-
(iii) Engineering/BHM/BBM Pharmacy Rs. 250/-
(iv) Medical including Uani/Ayurveda/ Rs. 300/-
Homeopathy/Dental
However, where the results of some candidates could not be finalised by the University for various reasons, the College concerned/University shall ensure that the results of all the remaining candidates are declared by the University within two weeks from the date of the first notification of the results to facilitate those candidates to become eligible for revaluation (review)".
The notification in respect of the Revaluation Ordinance, 1993 of Bangalore University dated 16-11-1993 provides for revaluation of answer scripts. Clause 2(i) enables a candidate to seek revaluation if he had passed in at least 50% of the subjects appeared. The said ordinance was then applicable to the students of the various Colleges affiliated only to Bangalore University to have the benefit of revaluation in which it has prescribed a procedure to be followed for the purpose of revaluation of the answer scripts. In that view of the matter, when the ordinance was covering in respect of the students of the various other Colleges affiliated to the Bangalore University, that the same cannot be made applicable in view of the commencement of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act unless it is adopted as provided under Section 62 of the Act. Further the said ordinance also cannot be made applicable to the candidates who have taken the examination of MBBS during the academic year 1996-97 through the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. In that view of the matter, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant so as to hold that the revised ordinance governing revaluation does also apply to the students who have taken the examinations under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
13. It is the contention of the appellant's Counsel that the Bangalore University has issued a notification dated 21-5-1998 amending certain provisions insofar as revaluation Ordinance is concerned which came into force from March 1998. This is the revised ordinance governing revaluation of answer scripts. Clause (1) of the revised Ordinance reads thus:
"The application for revaluation of answer scripts of maximum marks of 100 or less may be submitted in the prescribed proforma so as to reach the Registrar (Evaluation), BUB within 15 days of the fixed date of issue of marks cards immediately after the results are announced (in case of Engineering/BHM/BBM within 15 days after results announced with marks). The applications shall be routed only through the Principal of concerned College/Director of Correspondence Course. The application for revaluation shall be accompanied with a Demand Draft for the total amount of revaluation fee collected from the candidates of particular College.
The revised revaluation fee per paper is as follows:
i. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Rs. 150/-
ii. Law/Education/Phy.Edn./B.Lib.Sc. Rs. 400/-
iii. Engineering/BHM/BBM Rs. 500/-
iv. Medical including Unani/Ayurveda/
Homeopathy/Dental/
Nursing/Pharmacy. Rs. 600/-
Further late application for revaluation not beyond 5 (five) days from the last date fixed for receiving applications without penal fee will be entertained with a penal fee of Rs. 50/- per day per paper for B.A/B.Sc/B.Com./Law/Education/Phy. Education/ BHM/BBM and Rs. 100/- per day per paper for Engineering/ Medical/Unani/Ayurveda/ Homeopathy/Dental/Nursing/Pharmacy".
14. From the notification issued, it makes clear that the revaluation ordinance of answer scripts for Bangalore University is with effect from 21-5-1998 and the Corrigendum is dated 29-6-1998. It is seen that the revised ordinance governing revaluation of answer scripts prescribes the norms regarding filing of the application by remitting the amounts as noted in the Ordinance at (iv) viz., for Medical including Unani/Ayurveda/Homeopathy/Dental/Nursing/Pharmacy, the revaluation fee chargeable is Rs. 600/-. But it only provides in respect of the examinations conducted by the Bangalore University, for all those students who have failed and appeared in the supplementary examination including the Medical Course. Clause (1) of the Ordinance further makes it clear that the applications for revaluation of answer scripts of maximum marks of 100 or less have to be submitted in the prescribed proforma to the Registrar (Evaluation).
15. That on a perusal of the marks card of the appellant (Annexure-A), the maximum marks in Anatomy is 240, particularly in theory, the maximum marks is 180. Similarly, in Biochemistry, the maximum marks is 120 and theory is 90. Even by this also, under Clause (1) of the Ordinance governing the revaluation of the answer scripts, it cannot be made applicable to this appellant. In the said Ordinance, there is no reference as to whether the said Ordinance does apply to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences students or not. That under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, the entire scheme of Medical Sciences has been taken over and thereby no other University except the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has any power for revaluation or for retotalling of the answer scripts in respect of the examinations conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
16. The definitions under Section 2(e) and 2(g) reads thus:
"2(e) 'Health Sciences' means modern scientific medicine in all its branches, concerning preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative services, and includes surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, pharmacy, dental science, nursing and other allied subjects and includes the Indian Systems of Medicine in all their branches.
(g) 'Indian Systems of Medicine' includes Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Yoga and such other disciplines as may be prescribed".
(g) 'Indian Systems of Medicine' includes Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Yoga and such other disciplines as may be prescribed".
17. It is clear from the above definitions, that the entire system of Medical Sciences has been taken over and deemed to be affiliated with Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
18. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the revaluation ordinance of Bangalore University dated 21-5-1998 itself provides the benefit of revaluation to the students and the same is deemed to have been adopted under Section 62 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act. That the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 came into force from 1-6-1996 whereas the academic year for I Year MBBS commenced during 1996-97 and in the light of the notification dated 14-10-1996 issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences adopting the MBBS Regulations with certain modifications, that any Regulations, Ordinances, or Statutes made by other Universities subsequently are not applicable in view of the fact that all the Medical Colleges in the State which were affiliated to various other Universities are deemed to have been admitted or affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Apart from that, Annexure-C, dated 21-5-1998 does not mention or say that it also covers the candidates who are studying in various other Colleges. Thereby, it is manifest that except the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, no other University has got power to make any such rules or regulations in respect of Medical Sciences Course. Therefore, the notification dated 21-5-1998 and the Corrigendum dated 29-6-1998 issued by the Bangalore University have no application for the purpose of revaluation or retotalling in respect of the medical courses. Assuming for a while that such Ordinance is also in respect of MBBS Course, the same having not been adopted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, it cannot be made applicable.
19. Learned Counsel for the appellant produced Annexure-E, the Notification No. R(E)Exmn.Manual/52/96-97, dated 24-5-1997 and contended that under the Examination Manual, clause (11) provides that the Registrar (Evaluation) has to arrange for retotalling or revaluation of answer scripts on the request by the candidates. He further contended that when the Examination Manual of the Rajiv Gandhi University itself provides for arranging retotalling by the Registrar (Evaluation), it shows that a duty is cast on the Registrar (Evaluation) to make arrangement for revaluation of the answer scripts and therefore, the University is hound to provide for revaluation. It is nextly contended that the examination manual came to be framed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 35(2)(d) read with Section 60 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994. Therefore, it is deemed to be that all those ordinances that were in force in the other Universities then before the commencement of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act are deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of revaluation.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is an autonomous body. That the entire statutes have to be read together. That the Examination Manual is only procedural and does not have the force of law. It only prescribes the duties on the part of the Registrar (Evaluation) and no power is conferred as a matter to provide for revaluation and contended that it is only in case of necessity that is, if the regulations were to provide in future to extend such benefits and not otherwise. He further contended that the regulations of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, dated 14-10-1996 do not provide for any revaluation and therefore, the Examination Manual does not empower the Registrar (Evaluation) to provide for retotalling.
In support of his contention's, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty, supra. The Apex Court while dealing with the meaning of 'subject to' at para 6 of the said decision has observed as follows:
"On proper interpretation of the section it only means that the exemption under the licence is conditional upon the observance of the conditions prescribed and upon the restrictions which are imposed by and under the Act, whether in the rules or in the licence itself, that is, a licensee is exempt from assessment as long as he conforms to the conditions of the licence and not that he is entitled to exemption whether the conditions upon which the licence is given are fulfilled or not. The use of the words 'subject to' has reference to effectuating the intention of the law and the correct meaning, in our opinion, is "conditional upon".
The Examination Manual is only subject to conditional upon. When such being the case, the application of the Examination Manual does not arise. The notification at Annexure-E, dated 24-5-1997 reads thus:
"RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41 Ref. No. Date:
Sub: Framing of Examination Manual in the matter of Conduct of University Examinations of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bangalore.
Notification No. R(E), Examn. Manual 52/96-97, dated 24-5-1997 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35(2)(d) read with Section 60 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to notify the ordinance pertaining to "Examinations Manual" for Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bangalore as given in the schedule hereto annexed.
The Ordinance as above shall come into force with immediate effect.
By Order, Sd/-
Registrar".
Further clause (11) of Annexure-E, reads thus:
"Arrange for retotalling/revaluation (SOS) of valued answer scripts on request by the candidate".
The Examination Manual provides for the work to be attended by the Registrar (Evaluation). The said Examination Manual was framed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 35(2)(d) read with Section 60 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994.
In order to appreciate the powers and functions of the Registrar (Evaluation), it is necessary to extract certain provisions.
Section 16 reads as follows:
"16. The Registrar (Evaluation).--(1) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time officer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Syndicate.
(2) He shall be in-charge of the conduct of Examinations in the University and matters relating thereto and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes or Ordinances or as may be directed by the Vice-Chancellor.
(3) The salary and allowances and other conditions of service of the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes or Ordinances".
It deals with the powers and functions of the Registrar (Evaluation) to carry out the duties entrusted or as directed by the Vice-Chancellor. Except this, he has no independent exercise of power to do any such other acts, and other matters relating thereto provided under Section 35(2).
Section 35 reads thus:
"Ordinances.--(1) The Syndicate may, from time to time, make ordinances and amend or repeal the same.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinance may provide for the following matters, namely,--
(a) admission of the students to the University and its affiliated Colleges and the levy of fees for admission to the University, College and University Laboratories.
(b) courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic, distinctions of the University.
(c) conditions under which students shall be admitted to the courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas, and other academic distinctions of the University.
(d) conduct of examinations of the University and the conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examinations.
(e) manner in which exemption relating to admission of students to examination may be given.
(f) conditions, mode of appointment and duties of examining bodies and examiners.
(g) maintenance of discipline among students.
(h) fees to be charged for various courses of study, research, experiment and practical training and for admission to various University Examinations.
(i) all other matters which by this Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided by the Ordinances.
(3) In making an Ordinance, the Syndicate shall consult,--
(a) the Boards of studies in matters relating to the appointment and duties of examiners, and
(b) the academic Council in matters relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students.
(4) Every ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as the Syndicate may specify, and every ordinance so made shall be submitted to the Chancellor and the Senate for information".
A reading of Section 35 makes it clear that it enables the Syndicate to make Ordinances from time to time in respect of the matters provided under Section 35(2) that is, even in respect of conducting of the examinations of the University and the conditions under which the students should be admitted to such examinations etc., but Section 35(2) does not provide to make Ordinances for revaluation or for retotalling.
Section 60 reads thus:
"Transitory powers of the first Vice-Chancellor.-
(1) It shall be the duty of the first Vice-Chancellor to make arrangements for constituting the Syndicate and other authorities of the University within six months from the date of commencement of this Act or such longer period not exceeding one year as the Government may by notification direct.
(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall, in consultation with the the Chancellor make such rules as may be necessary for the functioning of the University.
(3) It shall be the duty of the first Vice-Chancellor to draft such statutes as may be immediately necessary and submit them to the Competent Authority for approval.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and until such time an authority is duly constituted under the Act, the first Vice-Chancellor may appoint any officer or constitute any committee temporarily to exercise and perform any of the powers and duties of such authority under this Act".
It deals with the power of the Vice-Chancellor to make necessary provisions for transitory powers. The Vice-Chancellor by virtue of the powers vested under Section 60, in consultation with the Syndicate has to frame such Ordinances etc., only insofar as matters provided under Section 35(2) and not in respect of other matters. Thus after coming into force of the Act, it framed Examination Manual by notification dated 24-5-1997 regulating the code of conduct and conferring a duty on the Registrar (Evaluation), regarding the overall supervision which he has to discharge. The said notification came to be issued by virtue of the powers under Section 35 read with Section 60 of the Act. It is to be noted that in respect of the matters provided under Section 35(2), that the University is empowered to issue Ordinances not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act, and the said Ordinances or notifications should be in conformity with Section 60. When Section 35(2) does not provide any provision for revaluation of answer scripts, that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that under the above Examination Manual it also provides for revaluation or retotalling of the answer scripts on the request of the candidates is without any merit. Clause (11) of the Examination Manual reads:
"Arrange for retotalling/revaluation (SOS) of valued answer scripts on request by the candidate", By this itself, it shows that it is not mandatory for arranging revaluation. The manual deals with only procedural aspects to be followed and that it should not be inconsistent with other provisions under the Act. The word 'SOS' makes it clear that it is 'in case of necessity', which means that whenever the provisions or notifications are issued under the Act, the Registrar (Evaluation) is empowered to exercise such power under clause (11) for the purpose of arranging revaluation or retotalling. Therefore, in our view, the Examination Manual cannot be construed as an Ordinance to enable the students to seek the relief of revaluation of answer scripts.
Section 64 reads as under:
"64. Act to prevail over other enactments.--This Act and any Statute or Rule or Ordinance made under this Act shall in respect of any College in the University Area have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment with respect to matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India".
A plain reading of the section makes it clear that in case if there is any inconsistency with the other provisions of the Act, it is the Statutes, Rules or Ordinances made under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act which has to prevail. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has adopted the Statutes and Ordinances framed under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. In that view of the matter, it is rather difficult to accept that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has to follow the Ordinances made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 till such Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules are made under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act. Therefore, the contention that it is mandatory on the part of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to follow the Ordinances made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 is without any merit. It is in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held as under:
"It may indeed be possible to say that on a subject on which the adopted regulations make no provision, the existing Statutes, Rules or Regulations would continue to remain in force. Even there, considerable difficulty may arise in deciding as to which out of the six sets of Statutes, Rules or Regulations would be applicable if there is a material difference in the provisions contained in the same. But, what is clear is that if out of a variety of subjects on which Statutes, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations exist, the Vice-Chancellor under Section 62 picked up a subject and provided by means of a set of Rules or Regulations, a complete Code covering the field then any such regulations would alone govern the subject so chosen, to the exclusion of all other Regulations, Rules or Ordinances".
In that view of the matter, it is the enactment and the Regulations of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences which prevails and not the Ordinances, Statutes and Regulations of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.
This Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in case if the Ordinances and Regulations framed were found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. But, that is not so in the case on hand. Thereby as a matter of right or as a matter of legitimate expectation, it is not open for the appellant to claim the benefit of revaluation or retotalling in respect of the matters not provided either under the Act or under the regulations of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. When once the Ordinances and Regulations were not adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 62, the appellant is not entitled for any relief claimed. A reading of the entire provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 and also the Regulations, dated 14-10-1996 makes it clear that the intention of the Legislature is not to provide for any revaluation or retotalling or giving any grace marks which is a healthy sign to maintain the standard of the education in the field of Health Sciences.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.