Karnataka High Court
Ms. Chandana B vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 28 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.12989 OF 2022 (EDN RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.12490 OF 2022, 13524 OF 2022,
13698 OF 2022, 13763 OF 2022, 14015 OF 2022,
14030 OF 2022, 14035 OF 2022, 14046 OF 2022,
14901 OF 2022, 15845 OF 2022, 16976 OF 2022
AND 18627 OF 2022
IN WP NO. 12989 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MS. CHANDANA B
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O BHASHKAR C R
R/AT BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA - 577502.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANGARA
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
.....RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY TO REFER THE PETITIONERS
ANSWER SCRIPT IN MICROBIOLOGY-P2 BEARING QP CODE
1031 (ANNEXURE-E) TO A THIRD EVALUATOR FOR DEVIATION
VALUATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.12490 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SMT. MALAVIKA N K
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
W/O DR. HARIPRASAD N
R/AT NO.214 NEW KHB COLONY
CHALUKYANAGAR MAIN ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU -560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE.
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU -560 041
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
3
3. M/S SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE
N H 13 PURLE
SHIVAMOGGA-577 222
REP. BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR.
4. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8
PHASE-1, DWARAKA
NEW DELHI -110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1;
SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI N KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R2 AND R3 TO REVALUATE THE ANSWER SHEETS OF
PETITIONER PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.13524 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MISS. VARALAKSHMI. R
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O RAJIV L
NO.101, SOBHA DEW FLOWER
MG GARDEN, 4TH CROSS
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD
INDRA GANDHI CIRCLE
J P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BANGALORE SOUTH, J P NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560078
...PETITIONER
4
(BY SRI K N SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560041
REP BY VICE-CHANCELLOR.
2. THE REGISTRAR - EVALUTION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVESITY HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANGARA
BENGALURU 560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT 2 ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE FAILED SUBJECT OF THE MBBS (RS4) EXAMINATIONS OF
MAY 2022 UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, STRICTLY IN
TERMS OF REGULATION 13 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1997
INCLUDING DEVIATION VALUATIONS ON THERE BEING A
DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN ALL THE
EVALUATORS, IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 01.07.2021 PASSED
IN WRIT PETITION NO.10244 OF 2021 AND CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AS PER THE LAW ALREADY DECLARED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE EARLIER WRIT PETITIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.13698 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. RESHMA SURESH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
5
D/O MR. K G SURESH KUMAR
R/AT A J INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
KUNTIKANA, NH 66
MANGALURU-575004.
2. RISHIKA S SHETTY
D/O SATISH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
MUKKA, PANVEL HIGHWAY
MANGALURU -575025
3. PRATIKSHA DEVANAND GAONKAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O DEVANAND S GAONKAR
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
SURATKAL, MUKKA, PANVEL HIGHWAY
MANGALURU -575025
4. ZABI KHAN
S/O SHAIK ANWAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
NO.8/36(01), 3RD EAST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, 10TH CROSS,
LIC COLONY MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560011.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
6
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY TO THE P-1 FOR THE EXAMINATION OF MAY 2022
ANNEXURE-C4 INSOFAR AS HER FAILED SUBJECTS ARE
CONCERNED; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.13763 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MS. MAANYA H
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O HARISH KUMAR H R
R/AT NO.94, 10TH MAIN
1ST BLOCK, III STAGE
MANJUNATH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
7
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT READING
DOWN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.6.2012 ANNEXURE-A TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT PLACES MISPLACED EMPHASIS ON THE
DIFFERENCE OF MARKS AWARDED BY TWO EVALUATORS AND
DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL
PERFORMANCE OF A CANDIDATE AND PROMOTES DISPARITY
WHICH IS ARBITRARY ON THE FACE OF IT; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.14015 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. JEEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O LATE DR. G MANJUNATHA GOWDA
RESIDING AT BASAWESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA
SJM CAMPUS, NH4 BYPASS
CHITRADURGA,
KARNATAKA -577 502.
2. VINAY KUMAR R S
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O MR. SIDDESH R
R/AT BASAWESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
CHITRAFURGA SJM CAMPUS, NH4 BYPASS
CHITRADURGA
KARANATAKA-577 502.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560041
8
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-
UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 FOR THE EXAMINATION
OF MAY 2022 ANNEXURE-E2 INSOFAR AS HER FAILED
SUBJECTS ARE CONCERNED; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.14030 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. DR. SANTOSHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O RAJU KULALA
R/AT SHRI KRISHNA NILAYA
VAKWADY POST AND VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA -576254.
2. DR. JASEELA P
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O MR. C MAMUHAJI
R/AT SAFA NEAR CANAA BANK
IRUIKKUR POST KANNUR,
KERALA -670 593.
3. DR. NAZEER DHADEERA DHEESHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
D/O MOHAMMED NAZEER
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
15 HESARGHATTA ROAD, NAVY LAYOUT
9
CHIKKASANDRA, CHIKKABANAVARA
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA -560090
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU KARNATAKA -560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION )
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 FOR THE EXAMINATION
OF MAY 2022 ANNEXURE-E3 INSOFAR AS HIS FAILED SUBJECTS
ARE CONCERNED; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.14035 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MISS THANISHQ NAGESH B N
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O NAGESH B N
NO. 201, PERAL GARDEN APARTMENT
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
DUO HIGHTS LAYOUT
BEGUR
BENGALURU - 560068.
...PETITIONER
10
(BY SRI SUBHA REDDY K N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANGARA
BENGALURU 560041
REP BY VICE -CHANCELLOR
2. THE REGISTRAR-EVALUTION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D N NAJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT 2 ADDITONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE FAILED SUBJECT OF THE MBBS (RS4) EXAMINATIONS OF
MAY 2022 UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, STRICTLY IN
TERMS OF REGULATION 13 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1997
INCLUDING DEVIATION VALUATIONS ON THERE BEING A
DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN ALL THE
EVALUATORS, IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 01.07.2021 PASSED
IN W.P.NO.10244/2021 AND CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS, AS
PER THE LAW ALREDY DECLARED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN
THE EARLIER WRIT PETITIONS.
IN WP NO.14046 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. ABHISHEK B PATIL
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O PATIL BASAVARAJ GOWDA
11
R/AT DOOR NO. 284/A 'PARAM JYOTHI'
KCHS LAYOUT, 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
JNANABHARATHI POST
NAGADEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 056.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANGARA
BENGALURU - 560041
KARNATAKA
REP BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NAJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION READING DOWN THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.AUTH/III AND V VALUATION/208/2012-2013 DATED
15.06.2012 ANNEXURE-B TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PLACES
MISPLACED EMPHASIS ON THE DIFFERENCE OF MARKS
AWARDED BY TWO EVALUATORS AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CANDIDATE,
AND PROMOTES DISPARITY, WHICH IS ARBITRARY ON THE
FACE OF IT; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.14901 OF 2022
BETWEEN
DR. AMRUTHA M K
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O SRI. M. R KUMARASWAMY
12
R/AT NO. 49, SBI OFFICERS COLONY,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560 041.
3. M/S KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
4. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, PHASE-1,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D N NAJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2;
SRI N KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 AND 2 TO REVALUATE THE ANSWER SHEETS OF THE
PETITIONER PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, J, K, L; ETC.
13
IN WP NO.15845 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. DR. OMAR AHMED A PATWEGAR
S/O DR. ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, KHB ARVIND NAGAR
HUBBALlI-580 024.
2. DR. SHIPLA S SOMANAL
D/O SHANKAR S SOMANAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
FLAT NO.12, SOMANAT NILAYA
SHIVAGANGA NAGAR
VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
3. DR. SINDHU M
D/O MURUDAIAH T
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.3011-129-2, RANGANATHA NILAYA
BEHIND AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE
MARUTHI NAGARA, DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU-561 203.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANGARA
BENGALURU 560041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NAJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
14
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT THE
REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONERS
BY EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT
APPLICABLE TO SITUATION WHEREVER THE DIFFERENCE OF
MARKS AWARDED BY THE VALUATORS IS MORE THAN EQUAL
TO 15 PERCENT AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE TOTAL MARKS
PRESCRIBED TO THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT IN VIEW OF THE
SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AT THE HANDS OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.31335 OF 2019 AFFIRMED IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2633 OF 2021 AND 231 OF 2021 AND
200862 OF 2021 SINCE AFFIRMED IN WA NO.771 OF 2021
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -E1 TO E5.
IN WP NO.16976 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MS. RUMAN RANJANGI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O HAJILAL RANJANGI
R/AT 50, 2ND CROSS
NEAR NATIONAL CO-OP BANK
ANJANEYA NAGAR B S
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560 041
RERPESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NAJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
15
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
MARKS CARDS OF THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-D INSOFAR AS
HER RESPECTIVE FAILED SUBJECTS ARE CONCERNED; AND
ETC.
IN WP NO.18627 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. MR. GAGAN K GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAKUMURTHY N
VEMAGAL B BLACK,
VEMAGAL KOLAR,
KARNATAKA - 563 101.
2. MS. RACHANA D N
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
D/O D.M NARAYANASWAMY,
503, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA,
18TH MAIN GKVK POST,
YELAHANKA
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 065.
3. MS. MANABI SAMAL
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O PRASANNA KUMAR SAMAL
R/AT MBBS GIRLS HOSTEL,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE,
SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD,
K.G. HALLI - 560045.
4. MR. CHIRAYU S REDDY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O MR. G.C SRINATH REDDY
R/AT 1356, FLAT NO. 101
KAY AAR MAVERICK APARTMENT
16
3RD CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU - 560065.
5. MR. RAHUL M
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O MALLIKARJUN,
R/AT # 661, 2ND CROSS,
CBI ROAD, HMT LAYOUT,
R.T NAGAR
BENGLAURU - 560032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLCOK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560 041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE MARKS
CARD OF THE P1 (ANNEXURE-D) INSOFAR AS HIS FILED SUBJECT ARE
CONCERNED; AND ETC.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since common issues are involved in these petitions, they are clubbed, heard together, and are disposed of by this common order.
17
2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking revaluation of the answer script of different discipline in Post- Graduate and Under-Graduate Medical Course. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent-University has no regulation/rules providing for revaluation of the answer scripts by a third evaluator. However, pursuant to the Notification dated 29th March, 2019, the respondent-University, in exercise of Section 39(1) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), in its 140th meeting held on 27th February, 2019, promulgated the ordinance governing valuation of answer-scripts of Post-Graduate, Post-graduate-diploma and Super-speciality courses. However, such ordinance is not promulgated in respect of Under-Graduate medicine course. It is the case of the petitioners that due to erratic evaluation of answer-scripts by the evaluators of the respondent-University, the right of the students has been infringed and therefore, sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent-University to evaluate the answer-scripts by an independent evaluator/third evaluator in view of large deviation of marks made by the different 18 evaluators in the first instance. It is the case of the petitioners that the answer-scripts are evaluated by two examiners and further where there is a difference in the total marks evaluated by two evaluators in each paper was ≥15% and above, such answer scripts would be sent for third evaluator and the average of highest total marks awarded by two out of three examiners is taken for consideration. This Court in writ Petition No.13626 of 2021 by its order dated 07th October, 2021 made in the case of SAHANA KALASGOND AND OTHERS v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS and connected matters, quashed the ordinance dated 01st February, 2021 and directed the responent-University to apply the provisions of ordinance of 2012 wherever there is a difference of ≥15% or more between the marks awarded by two evaluators. However, the ordinance dated 01st February, 2021 was held to be valid by this Court in Writ Petition No.9619 of 2021 made in the case of VISHWESHWARA C v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS and connected matters. Thereafter, in a series of cases, this Court, has followed the order dated 07th October, 2021 passed in the case of SAHANA KALASGOND 19 (supra). It is further contended that, this Court in Writ Petition No.48194-98 of 2012 made in DR. MENAKA MOHAN AND OHTERS v. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS and connected matters directed the respondent-University to adopt a model key-answer system or any other desirable measure that is more transparent and efficient of awarding marks to the students. Therefore, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions contending that due to erratic evaluation of answer-scripts by two evaluators in the beginning and on being sent for third evaluation, the marks obtained by the petitioners is strange and shocking and thereby, there is large gap between the first valuation and third evaluation and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
3. The respondent-University entered appearance and filed preliminary statement of objection, stating that there is no erratic valuation of answer-scripts as alleged by the petitioners nor there is authority/rules governing re-valuation of answer- 20 scripts as contended by the petitioners on individual questions and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions.
4. I have heard Sri B. Vachan, Smt. Lakshmi Menon, Sri Pradeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners who submitted the leading arguments for petitioners/students; Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel addressed arguments for Smt. Farah Fathima and Sri Santhosh Nagarale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University; and Sri N Khetty , learned Counsel for Medical Council of India.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in chorus, raised the following submissions:
(i) Key answers have been provided only for objective type questions and no key answers are provided in respect of subjective/descriptive type of questions, which would result in imbalance while awarding marks to the students.
(ii) Though there is no rule/regulation that provides for revaluation by an independent evaluator, however, there is large 21 gap of deficiency between the evaluators while awarding marks to each question and as such, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the marks obtained by the students, which would demonstrate the large gap between the first valuator and the second valuator; and on being sent for third evaluation, the variation is more than 10 to 30 marks and accordingly, sought for proper method to ensure correct procedure for evaluation of answer-scripts of the students.
(iii) Inviting the attention of the Court to the marks obtained by some of the petitioners, it is argued that some of the valuators have awarded marks and other evaluators have given zero mark for the very same question, which, per se, is illegal and as such, injustice has been caused to the students; and hence sought for an yardstick to be laid down for valuation of answer-scripts. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SYED SHOEB ALI v. VICE CHANCELOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES made in Writ 22 Petition No.205226 of 2019 dated 29th November, 2019; in the case of DR. MENAKA MOHAN AND OTHERS v. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS made in writ petitions No.48194-98 of 2018 and connected writ petitions decided on 21st December, 2018; and in the case of BASANT K.B. v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERESITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE KAR. 483 and argued that the respondent-University be directed to provide model key answers even with regard to subjective type of questions to maintain uniformity while awarding marks to the students in the best interest of medical education in the State.
5.1. Smt. Lakshmi Menon, learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER vs. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720; and in the case of HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL vs. TIRTHA SARATHI MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS reported in (2019)16 SCC 663, 23 argued that variability in marks is due to different yardsticks of different examiners resulting in putting the life of the students into peril and therefore, contended that even in the absence of specific provisions/regulations by the respondent-University, this Court, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfered with the erratic evaluations made by the respondent-University and set right the injustice caused to students.
6. Per contra, Sri D.N. Nanjuda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Farah Fathima for the respondent-University, argued that there is no provision for providing key answers insofar as descriptive answers is concerned and in the absence of Rule/Regulation providing for further revaluation of the answer-scripts as contended by the other side, argued that Writ petitions are not maintainable, as the petitioners have no legal right to claim revaluation of their answer scripts. Secondly, it is urged by the learned Senior Counsel that it is in the domain of the respondent-University to determine as to how the answer-scripts for any given 24 examination should be evaluated and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be restrained is disentitled from interfering with such policy matter of the respondent-University and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:
i) VIKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported
in (2021) 2 SCC 309;
ii) BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND
OTHERS v. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS
reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362;
iii) MOAZAM SHAH KHAN AND OTHERS v. VICE-
CHANCELLOR,RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS reported in
ILR 2002 KAR 1146;
iv) SAURODEEP BHATTACHARJEE v. RAJIV
GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
reported in 2016 SCC ONLINE KAR 7426;
6.1. Nextly, Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, emphasising on the method of evaluation of answer-scripts, invited the attention of the Court to Section 35 of the Act wherein Section 35(2)(d) of 25 the Act provides for conduct of examination by the University and the conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examinations and he further pleaded that the Academic Council or the Syndicate is the competent Authority to take decision in the matter, and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the respondent- University in Educational matters. He further pleaded that in view of the judgment of this Court invalidating the ordinance dated 01st February, 2021, the respondent-University resorted to Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012 and thereby conducted the examinations. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Section 35(4) of the Act, Syndicate shall have power to effect from which date the ordinance shall come into force and therefore, the Ordinance dated 01st September, 2022 came into existence and the said Ordinance is prospective in nature which cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The principal submission made by Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy with regard to the variations in the marks referred to the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012, is that, if the difference between the first evaluation and second evaluation is ≥15%, such answer-scripts 26 shall be referred to the third examiner for evaluation. In this regard, he emphasised that the total marks obtained by students in a particular subject has to be taken as a whole to compute as to the difference of ≥15% and not the marks obtained by the student in a given question and therefore, he contended that the Rules have been provided before the beginning of the examination and same cannot be changed at the behest of the failed students and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions. Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, further contended that insofar as providing key answers to the descriptive questions, the same would be considered by the respondent-University in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act and same would be prospective in nature and therefore, contended that the failed students cannot be permitted to contend for providing key answers to the descriptive questions after the completion of the examinations and announcing of results thereon and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions.
27
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be answered in these writ petitions is "whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference to direct the respondent- University to revaluate the answer-scripts, as sought for in the writ petitions?"
8. Writ petition No.12490 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner pursuing III Year MBBS Course in the third respondent-College of second respondent-University. He has sought for revaluation of the paper in Pharmacology subject. On careful examination of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said petition, whereby in Code 1029-Pharmacology-P2 the first examiner has awarded 37.5 marks and second examiner has given 49 marks, and in the revaluation, he got 41 marks. The difference between the first examiner and the second examiner is 11.5 marks. In view of such imbalance in awarding marks by three examiners, I have anxiously considered the marks awarded by the examiners to the petitioners in other writ petitions, who are pursuing courses under the respondent-University.
28
9. Insofar as Writ Petition No.14030 of 2022 and writ petition No.15845 of 2022 is concerned, the petitioners are pursuing Post-Graduate medicine course in different discipline, where the marks have been awarded by the examiners varies between 10 to 30 marks. In this regard, I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the petitioners seeking valuation of the answer-scripts. What is required to be determined in these writ petitions is, whether the total marks obtained by a candidate has to be looked into or the individual marks to each of the questions, has to counted for referring the answer-scripts for revaluation?
10. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, the legal issue involved in these writ petitions require to be answered with relevant provisions. Indian Medial Council Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "IMC Act") has been enacted with an object of providing for reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, and the maintenance of a Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith. The IMC Act was amended by way of Notification dated 04th November, 2019 and in exercise of 29 the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Act, the Board of Governors, in supersession of Medical Council of India with previous sanction of the Central Government, made the following regulation to further amend the "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997". Clause (2) of the amended Regulations, reads thus:
"(i) The Regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 from clause 2 to 14 contained in Chapters I to V and the Appendices and Schedules appended therein shall be included as Part I of the Regulation. These provisions shall be the governing Regulations with respect to batches admitted in MBBS courses until academic year 2018-19.
(ii) Part II containing the following Chapters shall be added to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 that shall be the governing Regulations with respect to batches admitted in MBBS course from academic year 2019-20 onwards."
11. The above provision of Part-II Regulations shall apply to MBBS Course starting from academic year 2019-20. The object of the Part-II Regulations designed to create an "Indian Medical Graduate" possessing requisite knowledge skills, 30 attitudes, values and responsive, to achieve national goals. Chapter VI of the Part-II Regulations provide for Assessment; Clause 11.1 provides for Eligibility to appear for professional examination; Clause 11.2.1 provides for direction to the Universities relating to conduct of examinations; Clause 11.2.9 provides of appointment of Examiners; Clause 11.2.9(j) provides that "all theory paper assessment should be done as central assessment programme (CAP) of concerned University". The State Universities, like Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in the present case, is to establish and incorporate a Health University for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instruction, teaching, training and research in Modern Medicine and Indian systems of Medicine in the State. Section 35 of the Act empowers the Syndicate to make ordinances and amend or repeal the same. Section 35(3)(b) of the Act stipulates that in the matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of Students, the Academic Council of the University could be consulted. Section 35(4) of the Act makes it clear that every ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as the Syndicate 31 specifies. Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012 promulgates, average of best of two out of three valuation marks or average of best of four out of five valuation marks for final computation of results in Under-graduate and Post-graduate medical examinations respectively. Clause 4 of the Ordinance provides for Procedure for multiple valuation. Sub-Clause (i) of Clause 4 reads as under:
"(i) All the answer scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is ≥15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel."
12. This Court, in the case of DR. MENAKA MOHAN AND OHTERS v. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS made in writ petition No.48194-98 of 2018 and connected matters, held that the subsequent ordinance of the year 2017 is not enforceable and therefore, directed the University to conduct examination in terms of 2012 Ordinance. Therefore, wherever there is a difference of ≥15% in the valuation of two examiners, the same is required to be sent for third valuation. Thereafter, the 32 Ordinance governing Under-graduate evaluation of answer- scripts 2019 was promulgated on 29th March, 2019 and the said 2019 ordinance was questioned before this Court in the case of SRI NEELESH MEHTA v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTHER in Writ Petition No.31335 of 2019 and connected matters and this court, by order dated 18th August, 2020, quashed the 2019 Ordinance and in the meanwhile, the Medical Council of India amended its Regulations from the Academic Year 2019-20, as discussed above. Thereafter, the Ordinance governing valuation of answer-scripts of MBBS course (RS-III Scheme) promulgated on 13th October, 2020 was extensively considered with regard to digital valuation system relating to the answers in the nature of multiple choice, and directed the Universities to adopt the system of 'Model Key Answers' in all the examinations of all the courses. Further, as this Court quashed the Ordinance notified on 13th October, 2020 and thereafter, the new Ordinance was promulgated on 01st February, 2021 by the respondent-University governing 'Central Assessment Programme' for theory assessment of MBBS Course as per the amended provisions under MCI Act. This Court, by 33 order dated 07th October, 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.13626 of 2021 and connected matters made in MS. SAHANA KALASAGOND AND OTHERS (supra), quashed the Ordinance dated 01st February, 2021 and as such, directed the respondent- University to apply the provisions of the Ordinance of 2012. However, in the case of VISHWESHWARA C. (supra) this Court, upheld the Ordinance dated 01st February, 2021. It is also to be noted that the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of MS. PRAGYA v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCS made in Writ petition No.9004 of 2022, by its order dated 28th April, 2022, held that the Order dated 17th December, 2021 in the case of VISHWESHWARA C (supra) is per-incuriam and as such, followed the judgment of this Court in the case of SAHANA KALASAGOND (supra). In the meanwhile, the respondent- University has issued another Ordinance on 01st September, 2022 and it submitted at Bar that, the said Ordinance is questioned before this Court and the same is pending consideration before this Court. In the meanwhile, this Court, by order dated 06th September, 2022 made in the case of SAHANA SHIVANAGOUDA MARIGOUDAR v. RAJIV GANDHI HEALTH 34 UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (Writ Petition No.14605 of 2022 and connected matters), rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner therein seeking additional valuation and thereby directed the respondent-University to conduct third valuation in respect of the petitioner therein in terms of the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012, issued by the respondent-University on the ground that the new Ordinance dated 01st September, 2022 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. In view of the aforementioned judgments of this Court, the point to be answered in these writ petitions is, "whether the petitioners are entitled for relief as sought for in the writ petitions?"
13. It is not in dispute that the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012 is applicable to the case of the petitioners. For the sake of convenience, the Definition in Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"2 DEFINITION:
(i) General Valuation - means the TWO valuations conducted as per Ordinance governing for UG Courses and TWO/FOUR 35 valuations conducted as per Ordinance Governing valuations of the PG courses (wherever applicable).
(ii) Revaluation - means the valuation conducted by the 3 or the 5 examiners for UG and PG as the case may be as per this Ordinance wherein the deviation between any two valuations in the general valuation is ≥15% or ≥10% as the case may be."
(underlining emphasised)
14. The language employed for seeking revaluation by a THIRD examiner in respect of Under-graduate course and FIFTH examiner in respect of Post-Graduate course, would arise only when there is difference of ≥15% or ≥10% of total marks obtained by the student. A bare reading of the aforementioned clause would substantiate the fact that in the event of difference of total marks of the student between the First examiner and the Second examiner is ≥15% or ≥10%, the Ordinance of the respondent-University provides for revluation by a Third examiner or Fifth examiner, respectively. Therefore, it is not the individual mark that is assigned by the examiner for respective question is to be taken into consideration, but the total marks of both the examiners would be the criteria to decide whether such 36 an answer-script requires to be revaluated by the Third Examiner or the Fifth examiner, as the case may be. Applying the aforementioned aspects to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have raised query with regard to individual marks assigned to the particular question not the total marks as the case may be and therefore, I am of the view that such contentions cannot be accepted, since in order to decide the aspects that the revaluation by a third or fifth examiner is required to done only if total marks assigned by the different examiners varies ≥15% or ≥10% and as such, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners herein. Hence, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
15. That apart, it is well settled principle in law that the judicial review in respect of the educational matters is limited and this Court, though has extraordinary writ remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall be restrained from interfering with the affairs of conducting the examination, 37 valuation, scrutiny of answer-scripts by the examiners, etc. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2021)2 SCC 309, wherein at paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [see-Basavaiah(Dr.) v. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.). Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:38
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved 39 by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
15. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
16. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting 40 from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
16. It is also useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS v. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2020)6 SCC 362, wherein at paragraphs 23 and 26 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"23. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates-particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous decisions of the court have constantly underscored that in the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised - preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held as follows:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant 41 rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks."
26. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re- valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not done; the "corrections" indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High Court's interference has not resulted in finality "to the result of the examinations" despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux."
17. In the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2018)2 42 SCC 357, at paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is 43 committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question."
18. It is also notable to extract the law declared by this Court in the case of MOAZAM SHAH KHAN AND OTHERS v. VICE- CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2022 KAR 1146, has observed thus:
"6. That leaves me with the only other question, namely, whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for revaluation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a 44 single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise that the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the valuation by one examiner followed by revaluation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently 45 evaluate the scripts and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate."
(underlining emphasised)
19. Applying the aforementioned declaration of law by this Court, as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the case on hand, Ordinance of 2012 is applicable to the case of the petitioners seeking revaluation by a third examiner or a fifth examiner, as the case may be, in view of Definition 2(ii) of the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012 specifically providing for students whose difference of marks between the first and second examiner is ≥15% or ≥10% in respect of Under-graduate and Post-graduate courses respectively. In view of my opinion supra, if the difference in total marks between First and Second examiner is ≥15% or ≥10%, such answer-scripts shall be revaluated by a Third or Fifth examiner as the respondent- University's Ordinance provides for third valuation/Third examiner in view of difference of ≥15% or ≥10% between the First and Second examiner. I also find force in the submission made by Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University, that the total marks obtained by the 46 student is to be taken into consideration while referring to the third examiner for revaluation, as the intention of Policy makers or Syndicate of the respondent-University is clear and unambiguous to consider total marks of two examiners and not the individual marks in a specific question of the answer-script, and on this count also, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
20. Insofar as the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of descriptive/subjective type of questions, it is needless to say that this Court, in the case of MENAKA MOHAN AND OTHERS (supra), has elaborately considered the requirement of the key answers and has accordingly directed the respondent-University. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be made in these writ petitions. In the result, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE lnn