Karnataka High Court
Dr Sharanappa S/O Laxman Meti vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 7 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12983
WP No. 105759 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105759 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. SHARANAPPA S/O. LAXMAN METI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. NO. 67/2, WARD NO.2, NIDSESI, NEAR HULLYAMMA
TEMPLE, NIDSESI, KOPPALA VANAGERE,
DIST: KOPPAL-583227.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-041,
REP. BY IT'S REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-041,
REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR MOHANKUMAR
BHAGAWAN MAHAVEER JAIN AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
B SHELAR B SHELAR
Date: 2023.11.09
10:44:54 +0530
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & P. G. CENTER,
GAJENDRAGAD, TQ. GAJENDRAGAD,
DIST: GADAG-582114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2,
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THUS COURT TO, ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 UNIVERSITY TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS
TO PROPERLY RE-EVALUATE AT 4TH LEVEL THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF
THE PETITIONER OF RESEARCH MEHAODOLOGY AND
BIOSTATISTICS SUBJECT PAPER OF 1ST YEAR POST-GRADUATE AND
AWARD APPROPRIATE MARKS, BY CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER
REPRESENTATION DTD 28/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12983
WP No. 105759 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is studying in a Post Graduate course in Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital & P.G.Centre, Gajendragad. Petitioner appeared for the examination in the month of July, 2023. He cleared all subjects except "Research Methodology and Biostatistics". It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 18 marks in the first evaluation carried out by one of the evaluators and secured 40 marks in the second evaluation carried out by the another evaluator. The difference between the marks assigned by two different evaluators was more than 15%. Hence, the paper was referred to the third evaluator. In the third evaluation the petitioner secured 53 marks. It appears, under the Rule, the average of the two highest marks is to be taken into consideration and accordingly, respondent No.1-University has awarded 47 marks to the petitioner. Since 50 marks being the minimum marks to clear the examination, -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12983 WP No. 105759 of 2023 respondent No.1-University has declared that the petitioner has failed in the subject referred to above. The petitioner being aggrieved with the result declared by respondent No.1-University has submitted a representation at Annexure-C, which is addressed to the Registrar of respondent No.1-University. The said representation is dated 28.08.2023. Till date there is no response to the said representation. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking writ of mandamus against respondent No.1-University.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that representation submitted by the petitioner for re-evaluation is not yet considered by the concerned respondent-authority and direction is to be issued to the respondent No.1-University to consider the said representation. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1-University is under obligation to consider the representation and the University cannot keep the application pending in a matter of this nature where the -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12983 WP No. 105759 of 2023 petitioner has sought for re-evaluation. It is further submitted that the inordinate delay in not considering the representation will result in loss of a year to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that under applicable Rules, there is no provision for fourth re-evaluation. He would submit that petitioner has appeared for the examination in the aforementioned subject on four occasions and on all four occasions he failed. He would submit that evaluation was carried out on three occasions. In the first evaluation the petitioner secured 18 marks, in the second evaluation he secured 14 marks and in the third evaluation, he has secured 53 marks. As there is no provision for fourth evaluation, the petition is to be dismissed is the submission.
4. This court considered the contentions raised at the bar.
5. The relevant Rules governing the evaluation are not produced before this court. If there is no scope for -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12983 WP No. 105759 of 2023 further evaluation of the petitioner's answer script, respondent No.1-University is required to respond to the representation of the petitioner and to inform the petitioner about the same by referring to relevant rules or regulations applicable to re-evaluation of answer scripts. The said exercise is not carried out by respondent No.1- University. For this reason, this court is of the view that writ petition is to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) Writ of mandamus is issued to the Registrar of respondent No.1-University to give an appropriate endorsement to the petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2023 by referring to relevant rules applicable to re-evaluation of answer scripts.
iii) The said exercise shall be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40