Karnataka High Court
Rajashekhar Bande S/O Ramesh Bande vs The Vice Chancellor And Ors on 18 October, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.202331/2022 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKHAR BANDE
S/O RAMESH BANDE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O UNIVERSITY ROAD,
BHAGYA NAGAR, KALABURAGI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VEERSHETTY B. KONDAMPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041
2. THE REGISTRAR ACADEMIC,
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH BLOCK JAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560011
3. THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR
BENGLAURU-560011
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO GET THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE
PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF MEDICINE HOMOEOPATHIC
THERAPEUTICS-III, CODE NO.1440 AT ANNEXURE-A2 VALUED
BY THE THIRD EVALUATOR OR THROUGH ANY SUBJECT EXPERT
OTHER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY VALUED HIS PAPER
ON THE FIRST AND SECOND OCCASION, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Petitioner who is a student of fourth year BHMS Course is before this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re- evaluate the answer script in the subject-Medicine Homeopathic Therapeutics-III. The petitioner has also given a representation dated 22.08.2022 seeking such re-evaluation.3
2. However, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences submits that re-evaluation could be done only if difference of the marks awarded by two evaluators is 15% or more. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.13626/2021 and connected matters disposed of on 07.10.2021. Learned counsel would further submit that admittedly, the marks awarded by two evaluators as could be seen from Annexure-A2 is 55 each and therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the marks awarded by the two evaluators. That being the petition, it is submitted that prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to point out from the marks awarded by two evaluators that there has been differences in the marks awarded 4 in respect of each question and therefore, learned counsel seeks to draw the attention of this Court to such discrepancies.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent- University and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that on facts, it is clear that both the evaluators have awarded 55 marks each and there is absolutely no difference in the final tally of the marks awarded by two evaluators. It is also by now well settled that the Courts could direct re-evaluation of answer script only if such a provision is available in the rules and regulations governing the evaluation of answer scripts. Having regard to the regulation of the National Medical Commission and the Ordinance issued by the respondent-University, re-evaluation could be directed only where the difference of marks awarded by two evaluators is 15% or more. 5
5. In the present case, admittedly, there is zero difference between the marks awarded by two evaluators. That being the factual position, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be redressed.
6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*