Karnataka High Court
Dr Neel Pasrija vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 26 September, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.17741 OF 2022(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. JAYA WAGHMARE
D/O PADHARINATH WAGHMARE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
REG NO.19MA033, R/O P 6/13,
AIR FORCE OFFICERS MESS
A F ADMINISTRATIVE COLLEGE,
RED FIELDS, PULIAKULAM ,COIMBATORE,
TAMILNADU-641018
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560070
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
2. THE REGISTRAR(EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560070
3. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE I
NEW DELHI-110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2
SRI. N. KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE
MARKS AWARDED TO THE PRACTICALS/CLINICALS
COMPONENT OF THE SUBJECT MD ANAESTHESIOLOGY OF
2
THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL - M.D.ANAESTHESIOLOGY
(RS3) EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2022 UNDERTAKEN BY THE
PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the marks awarded to the practicals/clinicals component of the subject 'M.D. Anaesthesiology' of the Post Graduate Medical - M.D. Anaesthesiology (RS3) Examinations of May 2022 undertaken by the Petitioner, vide Annexure- A; issued by the Respondents; as null and void; and b. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to reconduct the practicals/clinicals examinations of the Petitioner of the subject 'M.D. Anaesthesiology' afresh and to announce the results of the M.D. Anaesthesiology (RS3) Examinations of May 2022 afresh by recomputing the theory marks already awarded along with the practical marks to be awarded after the reconduct of practicals/clinicals examinations; and c. Issue any other appropriate writ, or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the ends of justice.3
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the answer booklets of the petitioner in order to contend that the mandatory requirement of filling up of columns in particular, the individual marks awarded by all four examiners in the practical and viva examination taken by the petitioner have not been filled up by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is not only contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulations (MCI Regulations) but also to the guidelines of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - RGUHS. In this context, my attention is invited to the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Dasari Chakradhar Vs. The Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -
W.P.No.1120/2022 C/W W.P.No.1160/2022 dated 4 17.03.2022 at Annexure-D in order to contend that the non- filling up of the mandatory columns in the answer booklets in relation to the individual marks obtained by the petitioner and the remarks column would vitiate the results and consequently, necessary directions are to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-conduct/re-do the practical and viva examination of the petitioner for the subject "M.D. Anesthesiology" afresh and proceed further in accordance with law and announce the results with the theory marks.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in addition to opposing the petition submits that the petitioner has filed a memo and points out that the aggregate marks of all four evaluators have been uploaded digitally and as such, there is sufficient and substantial compliance of the regulations and guidelines and consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record and the Regulations of the MCI and RGUHS make it unequivocally clear that filling 5 up of individual marks and remarks column by all the examiners is mandatory as can be seen from the answer booklet themselves. The answer booklets also discloses that in addition to individual marks awarded by the examiners, the examiners also have to fill up the remarks column. A perusal of the answer booklets produced at Annexure-B will indicate that whether the individual marks nor remarks column have been filled up by them and in the light of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that necessary directions are to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re- conduct and re-do the practical/clinical examinations of the petitioner.
6. In so far as the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the document produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 today, along with the memo will indicate that the practical marks and viva voce marks of the petitioner has been uploaded digitally/electronically is concerned, a perusal of the said marks sheet will indicate that it is only the aggregate of all the four evaluators that has been uploaded and individual marks of all the four 6 evaluators have not been uploaded nor the remarks column as it is mandatorily required by the regulations and guidelines. It is also relevant to state that there is no provision under the MCI Regulations and RGUHS guidelines, which provide for uploading the marks electronically/digitally without there being physical filling up of columns in relation to the marks to be awarded by each of the evaluators in the answer scripts/booklets. Under these circumstances, this contention urged on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to re-
conduct/redo the practical/clinical/viva examination of the subject "M.D. Anaesthesiology" afresh and to announce the results of M.D. Anaesthesiology (RS3) Examinations of May 2022 afresh by re-
computing the theory marks already awarded along with the practical/clinical/viva marks to 7 be awarded after re-conducting/redoing the said examinations within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc