Karnataka High Court
Sidanth Shenava vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 28 April, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.7774 OF 2022(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SIDANTH SHENAVA
S/O SUNDEEP SHENAVA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
C-401 WILSON MANOR, 13TH CROSS
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560027 ..PETITIONER
(BY SMT.LATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.HARISH GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GET THE ANSWER SCRIPT
OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF ANATOMY PAPER-I
CODE NO.1020 AND PAPER-II CODE NO.1021, VALUED BY
THE 3RD EVALUATOR OR THROUGH ANY SUBJECT EXPERT
2
OTHER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY VALUED HIS
PAPER ON THE 1ST AND 2ND OCCASION AND TO DECLARE
THE RESULTS AFRESH. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER AT
ANNEXURE-E DATED 06.04.2022.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Sri.Harish Ganapathi, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent.
2. Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to get the answer script of the petitioner in respect of Anatomy Paper-I code No.1020 and paper-II code No.1021, valued by the 3rd evaluator or through any subject expert other than those who have already valued his paper on the 1st and 2nd occasion, in the interest of justice and equity and to declare the results afresh.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of petitioner at Annexure-E dated 06.04.2022."3
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was enrolled as a MBBS student for the academic year 2020-2021. Having taken up the exams and valuation of the papers having taken place, the petitioner was declared `failed' by one mark. The contention of the petitioner now is that there are only two valuations as regards the papers of the petitioner and as such the third valuation is required to be carried out.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent by referring to the decision of this court in W.P.No.9619/2021 and connected matter on 17.12.2021 submits that the petitioner is bound by the ordinance dated 01.02.2021 and as such no such third valuation can be permitted.
5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for petitioner relies on a earlier decision of this court in 4 W.P.No.13626/2021 and connected matters, whereunder ordinance dated 01.02.2021 is quashed. Therefore she submits that the subsequent Judgment upholding the ordinance will not come in the way of consideration of above petition in as much as by the time when the order in writ petition No.9619/2021 and connected matter had been passed, ordinance dated 01.02.2021 was already quashed and not in existence as on 17.12.2021. This court by its order dated 07.10.2021 in W.P.No.13626/2021 and connected matters has passed the following order:
(1) The impugned Ordinance dated 01.02.2021, is quashed and set aside.
Before promulgating the next Ordinance, the respondent-University shall ensure that the matter is placed before its Committee of Academic Council and act according to the advise of the Academic Council. 5 (2) Consequently, applying the provisions of the Ordinance of 2012, wherever there is difference of 15% or more between the marks awarded by the two evaluators, the same shall be sent for third valuation. In case where third valuation was already done pursuant to the impugned Ordinance, nevertheless, revaluation shall be conducted even in such cases, in terms of the Ordinance of 2012. This shall apply not only to the petitioners, but to all students, similarly situated. (3) Consequent to the revaluation, if a student becomes eligible to be promoted to the second year course, such student shall be permitted to attend to the second year classes. (4) Such students shall be provided with make-up classes. However, if such students are found wanting on account of attendance to write the semester examination of the second year, alternative examination shall be conducted for such students after the minimum requirement of attendance is met.
(5) Such students who become eligible for the second year course shall be treated on par with the present second year students.
6(6) The revaluation shall be conducted and results shall be announced as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(7) In case of all other students who are not successful even after the revaluation, they shall be entitled for one more additional opportunity, beyond the four prescribed attempts. Ordered accordingly."
6. Considering that the ordinance dated 01.02.2021 had already been quashed on 07.10.2021 the subsequent order dated 17.12.2021 wherein no reference is made to the earlier order dated 07.10.2021 is required to be held to be per incuriam since the same was not brought to the notice of the said court.
7. The ordinance having stood quashed on 07.10.2021 the benefit thereof is required to be extended to the petitioners and similar order that 7 is passed in W.P.13626/2021 would enure to the benefit of the petitioners. As such I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Consequently, applying the provisions of the Ordinance of 2012, wherever there is difference of 15% or more between the marks awarded by the two evaluators, the same shall be sent for third valuation. In case where third valuation was already done pursuant to the impugned Ordinance, nevertheless, revaluation shall be conducted even in such cases, in terms of the Ordinance of 2012. This shall apply not only to the petitioner, but to all students, similarly situated.8
(iii) Consequent to the revaluation, if a student becomes eligible to be promoted to the second year course, such student shall be permitted to attend to the second year classes.
(iv) Such students shall be provided with make-up classes. However, if such students are found wanting on account of attendance to write the semester examination of the second year, alternative examination shall be conducted for such students after the minimum requirement of attendance is met.
(v) Such students who become eligible for the second year course shall be treated on par with the present second year students.9
(vi) The revaluation shall be conducted and results shall be announced as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(vii) In case of all other students who are not successful even after the revaluation, they shall be entitled for one more additional opportunity, beyond the four prescribed attempts.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN