Shri Krutik Rajaram Kundri vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 31 January, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Krutik Rajaram Kundri vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 31 January, 2022

Bench: B.M. Shyam Prasad

                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

        WRIT PETITION NO.100115/2022 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRI KRUTIK RAJARAM KUNDRI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. 88, MADI GUNJI
TQ. KHANAPUR
DIST. BELAGAVI.                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
       HEALTH SCIENCES
       4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 041.
       REPRESENTED BY
       ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)

2.     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
       HEALTH SCIENCES
       4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 041.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       VICE CHANCELLOR.

3.     MARATHA MANDALS COLLEGE
       OF PHARMACY
       BELAGAVI.
                              2




      REPRESENTED
      BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. VAISHALI KALADAGI, ADV.,FOR
    SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV., )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS TO TAKE
IMMEDIATE STEPS TO PROPERLY RE-EVALUATE THE
ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONER OF MEDICINAL
CHEMISTRY I-TTP IN A MANUAL MANNER AND AWARD
APPROPRIATE MARKS AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner, who is unsuccessful in revaluation of his Medicinal Chemistry-I-TTP [as part of his B- Pharma course], has filed this petition for a mandamus to the first and second respondents to consider the representation [Annexure-C] submitted by him to re- evaluate his answer script and allot grace marks.

2. The fulcrum of the petitioner's case is that his papers have been evaluated on-line by two evaluators and because the evaluation is on-line, the 3 evaluation may not be effective; as such his answer script must be evaluated manually and in terms of the relevant ordinance. On behalf of Sri.Shivakumar Badawadagi, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, it is submitted that the evaluation is in accordance with the Ordinance for valuation which is notified on 29.03.2019 and this Ordinance does not permit physical evaluation.

However, it is undisputed that the Ordinance which is notified on 29.03.2019 is quashed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.31335/2019 on the ground that the evaluation by two evaluators, when the MCI Guidelines speaks of evaluation by four evaluators, would be impermissible in law. This Court, on a careful consideration of the rival submissions, including the submission on behalf of the respondents that the orders of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.31335/2019 is in the light of 4 the MCI Guidelines and therefore not applicable to B- Pharma Courses, is of the considered view that the writ petition must be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation strictly in accordance with law and in a time bound manner.

Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on or before 11.02.2022 and inform the petitioner about such consideration within a week therefrom. It is needless to observe that there is no comment on any merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE AN/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court