Karnataka High Court
Almas Kausar And Ors vs Rajiv Gandhi University And Anr on 28 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB
WA No. 200176 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200176 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ALMAS KAUSAR
D/O MOHAMMED AMEERUDDIN,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES COLLEGE,
R/O KHUNI ALAWA MOMINPURA,
KALABURAGI - 585 104, REG NO.18M5191
2. NAYESHA NOORIEN
Digitally signed by
D/O N. WAHEED PATEL,
VARSHA N AGE: 22 YEARS,
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH OCC: STUDENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
COLLEGE AL-AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE,
VIJAYAPURA.
R/O H.NO.2-5-140/1/1,
OPP: AR-RAHEMAN MASJID,
S.S. COMPOUND KOT-TALAR TARANATH ROAD,
RAICHUR - 584 101
REG NO.16M2275
3. FATHEEMA FARHEEN
D/O MD KHAJA HUSSAIN,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB
WA No. 200176 of 2024
MEDICAL SCIENCES COLLEGE,
R/O K.B.N. GIRLS HOSTEL, NOOR BAGH,
KHAJA COLONY, KALABURAGI - 585 101
REG.NO.18M5206.
4. SURAJ R. DANDE
S/O RAJENDRA DANDE,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE S. NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL
SCIENCES COLLEGE (SNMC) BAGALKOT,
R/O PLOT NO.64, 4TH CROSS G.D.A.
SANTRASWADI SVBP LAYOUT,
KALABURAGI - 585 105 REG NO.18M1264.
5. ROHAN WAGHMODE
S/O MANOHAR WAGHMODE,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES COLLEGE,
R/O PLOT NO.1-866/3A/A2 BHAGWATI NAGAR,
NEAR SANGMESHWAR HOSPITAL KHEDEKAR
LAYOUT KALABURAGI - 585 103
REG NO.18M5256.
6. ADITYA
S/O DEVENDRA S.GUTTEDAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE KBNIMS,
R/O PLOT NO.2-910/62/434/A,
G.D.A. LAYOUT KUSNOOR ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103 REG NO.14M2753.
7. SYED QUAID IMRAN
S/O SYED RASHID ALI,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES COLLEGE,
R/O PLOT NO.8/32, NEAR OLD TMC OFFICE
MAIN ROAD, CHITGUPPA REG NO.17M4614.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB
WA No. 200176 of 2024
8. GOPIGARI VIVEK KUMAR GOUDA
S/O G. RAJENDER GOUD,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
COLLEGE MR MEDICAL COLLEGE
R/O PLOT NO.85 GDA LAYOUT,
SWASTIK NAGAR,
SEDAM ROAD KALABURAGI - 585 105
REG NO.13M0648.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,
4TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
2. THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION,
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN R. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.201553/2024 DATED 30.07.2024 AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) The appellants who were the petitioners in the writ petition are calling in question the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201553/2024 dated 30.07.2024. The appellants are MBBS students who were admitted to the course in the year 2017-18. It is not disputed that the appellants are RS-3 batch students and their basic grievance is that a different methodology of evaluation is prescribed by the respondent - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short hereinafter referred to as 'RGUHS' or respondent - University) to RS-3 batch, when compared to all other batches. The prayer before the learned Single Judge was inter alia, to quash the Ordinance/ Notification dated 13.06.2023.
2. Leaned counsel for the appellants contended that this Court, in the case of Neelesh Mehta and Ors. Vs. RGUHS and another, in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters dated 10.08.2020 and Basant K.B. Vs. -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 RGUHS and another, in W.P.No.231/2021 and connected matters dated 11.02.2021 had held that the evaluation of the answer scripts was required to be done in terms of Regulation 13(2) of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (also known as 'MCI Regulations', for short) and therefore directions were issued to the RGUHS to cause evaluation of the answer scripts by a set of four evaluators and compute the results by averaging the marks awarded by four evaluators, to bring the process in conformity with MCI Regulations. It is contended that accordingly the RGUHS caused the re-evaluation of the failed answer papers, at the hands of two more evaluators.
3. However, RGUHS promulgated an Ordinance and issued Notification dated 05.09.2022, introducing Central Assessment Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of MBBS Course, with effect from 01.09.2022, providing for evaluation of answer scripts by two evaluators and declaration of results by taking highest marks from amongst the two evaluators. CAP-2022 came -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 to be challenged by several students in Mr. Ricardo Konjengbam and Ors. Vs. RGUHS and Ors., in WP No.7505/2023 and connected matters dated 11.07.2023, wherein RGUHS filed an affidavit accepting the contentions of the students and undertook to evaluate the answer scripts by two additional evaluators, so that the procedure will fall in line with Regulation 13(2) of the MCI Regulations. Again evaluation by two more evaluators were held, but such evaluation was also held in respect of all the papers, including the papers where the students had passed the papers. By way of an interim direction issued on 19.04.2023, the results of the additional evaluation were directed to be announced only in respect of failed papers.
4. The respondent - RGUHS issued an amendment to the Ordinance/Notification dated 05.09.2022, by issuing another Notification dated 13.06.2023, which is the bone of contention. By issuing the said Notification, the Committee of Academic Council -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 of RGUHS sought to restrict the operation of the Ordinance/Notification dated 05.09.2022 to all Undergraduate Medical, Dental, Pharmacy, Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, Nursing, Allied Health Services, BPT, BNYS Courses except for the students admitted to BAMS and BUMS on or after 2021-22 and the entire batch of RS-3 MBBS Course students who were admitted prior to academic year 2019-20, since Regulation 13(2) of the MCI Regulations were applicable to them. (Emphasis supplied)
5. The grievance of the appellants is that batch of RS-3 MBBS Course students who were admitted prior to academic year 2019-20 are discriminated against. It is contended that in the statement of objections filed at the hands of the respondent - RGUHS, it is clearly stated that the overall percentage of marks awarded and pass percentage dramatically increased after the change in the evaluation process i.e., evaluation made by two evaluators, when compared to evaluation done at the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 hands of four evaluators. It is therefore contended that the RGUHS should have given the benefit of evaluation at the hands of two evaluators, which is available to all other students, even to batch of RS-3 students. It is further sought to be contended that in the reported judgment in the case of Basant K.B. (supra) it was noticed that the National Medical Commission had issued a Circular during Covid-19 pandemic, leaving it to the discretion of the universities to adopt the double evaluation method, while providing for deviation evaluation by a third examiner. It is contended that the Ordinance/Notification dated 05.09.2022 prescribing evaluation by two evaluators and the said procedure was made applicable to all batch students, including RS-3. However, by issuing an amendment to the said Notification on 13.06.2023, the RS-3 batch students have been placed at a disadvantage and such action is arbitrary, capricious and therefore the same requires to be quashed while directing the RGUHS to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners in terms of the procedure prescribed in Notification dated -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 05.09.2022 or in the alternative issue writ of mandamus directing RGUHS to re-compute the marks taking it into consideration the best of four evaluation, in the failed subjects and thereafter declare the results afresh.
6. It was also submitted that in terms of the amendment Notification dated 04.11.2019 issued by the Medical Council of India and the subsequent Notification dated 29.12.2023 issued by the National Medical Commission all answer script are subjected to two evaluation by the concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by the two evaluators shall be considered for computation of results. Where the difference between two evaluations is 15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper, they shall be subjected to third evaluation. It is therefore submitted that the impugned notification would run contrary to the prescription of the National Medical Commission.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, appearing for the respondent -
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 RGUHS submitted, while drawing the attention of this Court to the preamble to the impugned Notification dated 13.06.2023, that various directions issued by this Court required the Committee of Academic Council of RGUHS to issue the amendment Notification. It is noticed by the Committee of Academic Council that the RS-3 batch MBBS students, who failed in February, 2023 examination, approached this Court in W.P.No.7505/2023 and connected matters, challenging the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022. This Court passed an interim order on 19.04.2023 directing the University to conduct evaluation in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the MCI-GME 1997 i.e., each theory answer paper has to be evaluated by four examiners and in case of deviation of 15% of the maximum marks awarded by two evaluators, the said answer script has to be evaluated by a fifth examiner and the average of four highest marks will have to be taken for final computation of results. Pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, the University conducted evaluation in terms of Regulation 13(2) and also extended
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 the benefit to all the similarly placed students of RS-3 batch of February, 2023 examination. It was therefore impending upon the University to clarify that the recommendation of CAC dated 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022 and Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 cannot be made applicable to student of RS-3 batch of MBBS course. Consequently, the amendment to the Ordinance was issued by way of a Notification dated 13.06.2023, making it clear that the procedure contemplated in the Ordinance date 05.09.2022 will not be applicable to RS-3 MBBS course students.
8. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that three learned Single Judges of this Court have considered similar grievance raised at the hands of the students of RS-3 batch and have dismissed the writ petitions. The three judgments are:
1) Mr. Thejaswi Ketham and others Vs RGUHS and another [W.P. No.18832/2022 dated 01.02.2023].
2) Mr.Ricardo Konjengbam [W.P.No.7505/2023 and connected matters dated 11.07.2023].
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB
WA No. 200176 of 2024
3) Ms. Suranjani Kar Vs. The Registrar
(Evaluation), RGUHS & another
[W.P.No.29338/2023 dated 14.02.2024].
9. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions and this writ appeal, supplementary examinations have been held and the appellants before this Court have appeared in the supplementary examinations. Results of the supplementary examinations are also announced and, on instructions it is submitted, that out of eight appellants herein, five have passed in the supplementary examinations.
10. Heard learned counsel Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni for the appellants, learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik for the respondent - RGUHS and perused the appeal papers.
11. We are constrained to observe that the methodology of evaluation of the theory answer scripts
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 has fallen for consideration at the hands of this Court, all at the instance of the students of RS-3 batch. Initially, in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta and Ors. Vs. RGUHS and another, in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters dated 10.08.2020 and Basant K.B. Vs. RGUHS and another, in W.P. No.231/2021 and connected matters dated 11.02.2021, the students were successful and this Court held that evaluation at the hands of two evaluators was contrary to Regulation 13(2) of the MCI-GME Regulations, 1997. Directions were issued to the RGUHS to conduct evaluation at the hands of two more evaluators and thereafter provide for deviation evaluation in case of erratic evaluation where the difference of marks was more than 15% of the total marks prescribed for the paper. Such directions were issued only in respect of failed papers. What we find thereafter is constant complaints at the hands of the failed students. If evaluation is done at the hands of two evaluators, which apparently gives better results for the students, even then petitions are filed by the failed students contending that such evaluation will be
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 contrary to Regulation 13(2). If evaluation is done at the hands of four evaluators, the failed students would file petitions contending that the benefit of evaluation at the hands of two evaluators given to all other students, except the batch of RS-3, would be arbitrary and therefore they would seek evaluation at the hands of four evaluators. We should therefore say that much indulgence has been shown by this Court, being carried away by misplaced sympathy, to protect the interest of the students. We cannot lose sight of the fact that at our directions, the respondent - RGUHS has been forced to conduct re- evaluation of failed papers, in a different manner, than what was actually followed in respect of the passed papers.
12. This aspect of the matter has been pertinently captured in the judgments of two learned Single Judges, in paragraph Nos.52 and 53 in Mr. Thejaswi Ketham (supra) and in paragraph No.21, 44 to 47 and summarized in paragraph No.49 in Ms. Suranjani Kar (supra). The
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 learned Single Judge, in the case of Mr. Thejaswi Ketham (supra) has held that at the whims and fancies of the petitioners who are unsuccessful, the methodology cannot be reversed or varied. Such action would amount to turning the clock backwards and putting the cart before the horse, which is not permissible. In paragraph No.49 in Ms. Suranjani Kar, the learned Single Judge has held that there is a strong inclination by the petitioners students to somehow pass the examinations, sometimes nit-picking on provisions regarding method of evaluation, sometimes seeking right of revaluation and/or seeking to tailor the regulations to suit the petitioners and ensure that they pass in the examinations, which would be a matter of great concern, as petitioners are pursuing course in medicine and would be dealing with the lives of people.
13. We fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judges in the case of Mr. Thejaswi Ketham (supra) and Ms. Suranjani Kar (supra). The impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge having regard to the previous judgments and we do not find any infirmity in
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 the impugned order. On facts, it should also be noticed that subsequently the appellants have appeared in the supplementary examination and five out of the eight appellants are reported to have been successful in the examination.
14. We have also noticed that the then Medical Council of India, while issuing amendment notification on 04.11.2019 and bringing amendments to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, clearly made a distinction of the applications of the amended provision to RS-3 batch and RS-4 batch. Reliance sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on notification dated 29.12.2023 issued by the National Medical Commission is misplaced. Those provisions cannot be made applicable to the MBBS Students, since the said provisions are made applicable only to Postgraduate Medical students. The appellants will not be permitted to re-agitate the fact that the law applicable to Postgraduate students should also be made applicable to the Undergraduate students. We take
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9014-DB WA No. 200176 of 2024 note of the fact that RS-3 batch, which commenced from the Academic Year 2017-18 has completed the course this year. The law laid down by this Court in the case of Neelesh Mehta (supra) and Basant K.B. (supra) has been followed by the respondent - RGUHS. The impugned amendment notification dated 13.06.2023 and the methodology for evaluation prescribed and made applicable to RS-3 batch is in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in Neelesh Mehta (supra) and Basant K.B. (supra) and interim directions issued in W.P.No.7505/2023 dated 19.04.2023.
15. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE BL