Karnataka High Court
Ms Irin Thomas vs The Registrar(Evaluation) on 8 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
W.P. NO.10573 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MS.IRIN THOMAS,
D/O: C.K. THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
STUDENT OF: SRINIVASA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL
SCIENCE, R/AT: 004, TWISHA APARTMENT,
MRPL ROAD, SURATKAL,
MANGALURU-575 014.
UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER:15D8185
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041.
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE CHANCELLOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041.
3. THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,
2
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NBCC CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, PLOT NO.2,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAA ANANDAMAI MARG,
OKHLA PHASE-I, LANDMARK-(NEAR HOTEL
CROWNE PLAZA), NEW DELHI-110 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN
DATED 19.05.2022 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is a Dental student and is studying in the college affiliated to respondent No.2- University. She has failed in the examination conducted in December, 2021. Not happy with the evaluation of the respondent No.2 - University, the petitioner has made a representation to the University with a prayer to re- evaluate the answer scripts in which she has failed. As the same has not been considered, the instant writ petition is filed challenging the notification pertaining to Under Graduate Evaluation of answer scripts and they have sought for a direction to the University to re-evaluate her 3 answer scripts. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted that the Ordinance under challenge in the instant writ petition i.e., Ordinance Governing Under Graduate evaluation of answer scripts has been struck down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, the same has been challenged by the University before the Division Bench and there is an interim order staying the said judgment. For the said reasons, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that she be given an opportunity to make a fresh representation to the respondents No.1 and 2 - University highlighting the error committed in the evaluation and seek re-evaluation of the answer scripts and that she would not press for the reliefs prayed in the instant writ petition.
2. The learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 -University submits that if the petitioner were to make a representation to the University, the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate decision would be taken.
3. Hence, the following:
4
ORDER The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the University in respect of the re-evaluation of his answer scripts. If such a representation is made, the University shall consider the same in accordance with law and take appropriate decision within a period of one week thereafter.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AG