Karnataka High Court
Ms R Varsha vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 7 April, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.No.15039/2017 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
MS. R. VARSHA
D/O. M.J. RAMANI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT No.22/A, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK,
RMV II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094 ...PETITIONER
(BY Sri. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV.,
FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADV.)
AND :
1 RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR [EVALUATION]
2 KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 070
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO
ISSUE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE
THEORY PAPERS IN THE SUBJECTS OF MEDICINE, PAEDIATRIC
SURGERY IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 16.3.2017
[PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B].
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to issue photocopies of the answer scripts of the theory papers in the subjects of Medicine, Paediatric Surgery in terms of the Application dated 16.3.2017 [Annexure-B] besides seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the theory papers in the aforementioned subjects.
2. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner -3- and the learned Counsel Sri. N.K. Ramesh, appearing for Respondent No.1.
3. As regards the first prayer, learned Counsel Sri. N.K. Ramesh fairly submits that the application filed by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of one week.
4. Submission is placed on record.
5. As regards the second prayer, the issue is no more res integra in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of 'SAURODEEP BHATTACHARJEE v. THE REGISTRAR [EVALUATION] RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES' in Writ Petition Nos.51484/2016 and connected matters [DD- 13.12.2016] wherein it is categorically held thus:
"xxx that even in the absence of any provision, this Court still can interfere where this Court is convinced that there is arbitrary exercise of power, absence of fair play, -4- discrimination and patent illegality in the procedure of evaluating the answer scripts. No such circumstance is made in any of these cases. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be conceded as otherwise it would involve more time, labour, practical difficulties and would throw the entire system out of gear."
6. In view of no specific provision enabling the revaluation of answer scripts, no such directions can be issued by this Court. This Court had referred to the Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of 'MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA MANDAL, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL v. KUMARI NIDHI SHRIVASTAVA', in LPA No.63/1999 [DD-12.10.1999] wherein it is held thus:
"Wherever answers are descriptive in nature, the assessment is bound to differ from examiner to examiner and it cannot be said that the examination by one examiner was faulty on account of difference of perception of another examiner. If this is permitted, then it -5- will give a blow to the whole Regulation which does not permit revaluation of the copies."
and also yet another Judgment of this Court in the case of 'SHIRIN SHAMSI JOKANDAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER' in W.P. No.52724/2015 [DD-7.9.2016] wherein it is held thus:
"10. Undoubtedly, the petitioner happens to be a meritorious student who has secured first class in the first and the second year, and secured a distinction in the third year, but has missed the distinction only by a single mark in the fourth year. However, even if the petitioner is a meritorious student, in the absence of any Rules or Regulations of the University, granting a right of revaluation of the paper, the said right can neither be pleaded, nor granted by this Court. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel that the University should be directed to re-evaluate her answer script cannot be accepted."-6-
7. In view of the Judgments of this Court cited above, the prayer sought for revaluation of the answer scripts do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is negated.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 as regards the first prayer is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner to issue the photocopy of the answer scripts as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of one week from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-