Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Apeksha D/O Ramanna Nandi vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 22 April, 2022

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                                      -1-




                                                              WP No. 101713 of 2022




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                                                   BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                                                  BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 101713 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
                        BETWEEN:


                              APEKSHA D/O RAMANNA NANDI
                              AGE. 19 YEARS,
                              STUDENT OF 1ST YEARS, MBBS IN SRI B V V SANGHAS S
                              NIJALINGAPPA
                              MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAGALKOT - 587 101.



                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                        AND:
                        1.    RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
                              4 TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560041
                              REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).

                        2.    RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
                              4 TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560041
                              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHANCELLOR.

           Digitally
           signed by
                        3.    B.V.V SANGHAS S. NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
           SHIVAKUMAR
           HIREMATH           BAGALKOT - 587 101.
SHIVAKUMAR Location:
HIREMATH   Dharwad
           Date:
                              REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL .
           2022.04.23
           10:48:16
           +0530




                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                        (BY SRI. S.S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
                        NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)
                               -2-




                                        WP No. 101713 of 2022


     THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
OR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
UNIVERSITY TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO PROPERLY EVALUATE
THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE PETITIONER OF (1) PHYSIOLOGY TP1,
(2) PHYSIOLOGY P2, (3) ANATOMY TP1 AND (4) ANATOMY P2
SUBJECTS AND AWARD APPROPRIATE MARKS, ETC.,
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B
GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

1. Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 University to take immediate steps to properly evaluate the answer script of the petitioner of (1) Physiology TP1, (2) Physiology P2, (3) Anatomy PT1 and (4) Anatomy P2 subjects and award appropriate marks.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 University to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2022, vide Annexure-C for challenging evaluation and award the marks.
(c) Issue such other writ, order or direction that may be found necessary and deemed fit in the interest of justice.
-3- WP No. 101713 of 2022

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner's request for re-evaluation has not been considered by the respondents, despite an application under representation having been given. A perusal of the evaluation marks sheet produced at Annexure-B series indicates that the difference between the first and second evaluation is 15% or more.

4. Hence, the respondents are directed to carryout re-

evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners in Physiology TP1, Physiology P2, Anatomy TP1 and Anatomy P2, within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE SVH