Karnataka High Court
Kumari. Sanjana Jagadeesh vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 28 September, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 KARNATAKA 199
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
Writ Petition No.48409/2016 (EDN - RES)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI SANJANA JAGADEESH
D/O. Dr. JAGADEESH KUMAR P M
AGE: 23 YEARS, MBBS STUDENT
R/A.NO.1820/1, 'SANJANA'
BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
II CROSS, MANDYA - 571 401 ...PETITIONER
(By Sri. KRISHNA S DIXIT & Sri. S.R.DODAWAD, Advs.,)
AND:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.N.K.RAMESH, Adv.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY TO UNDERTAKE EVALUATION OF PETITIONER'S ANSWER
TO QUESTION NO.4 IN THE SUBJECT GENERAL MEDICINE PAPER-I
OF PHASE-III PART-II (IV YEAR) MBBS EXAMINATION HELD IN MAY
2016.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
The unfortunate medical science student prosecuting MBBS Course is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent - University to undertake evaluation of Petitioner's answer to Question No.4 in the subject General Medicine Paper-I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS examination held in May 2016.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she joined medical science prosecuting MBBS Course at Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B G Nagar, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District for the academic year 2011-12. MBBS Course is 5 years and 8 months course divided into Phase-I (8 months), Phase-II (1½ years), Phase-III Part-I (1 year), Phase-III Part-II (1½ years) and Internship ((1 year). The students who have successfully completed Phase-I to Phase-III Part-II examinations are only allowed for Internship and will be conferred Degree. The Respondent - University conducts examination for the MBBS Course and 3 assigned register number to the petitioner as 11M8072 and she has cleared the Phase-I MBBS subjects in the examination held in December 2012; Phase-II MBBS subjects in the examination held in December 2014 and Phase-III Part- I MBBS subjects in the examination held in June/July 2015 as per Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' respectively.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that Phase- III Part-II (IV year) MBBS Examination was held in the month of May 2016, which consists of 4 subjects namely:
(a) Paediatrics
(b) General Medicine
(c) Surgery, and
(d) Obstetrics & Gynaecology.
In each subjects except in Paediatrics there are two theory papers.
4. Petitioner appeared for Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS Examination and wrote all the papers. The result was 4 announced on 12.8.2016 through internet and the petitioner is declared to have failed. In the subject General Medicine, petitioner has secured 53 marks out of 100 in Theory Paper-1 and 33 marks out of 100 in Theory Paper-2, the minimum passing marks being 120 out of 240, since maximum marks for Theory Viva Voce is 40. The petitioner has secured 28 marks out of 40. The marks card of the petitioner's 4th year MBBS subjects downloaded from the website of Respondent - University, the same is produced at Annexure 'E'. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of her answer scripts of the General Medicine Papers-I & II and came to know that though she had answered Question No.4 in Medicine Paper-1, the 1st evaluator has not evaluated the same and had mentioned NA (Not Answered) against question No.4 in the Digital Evaluation Slip and the 2nd evaluator has awarded zero marks to the said question.
5
5. The OMR Answer Book Let, which reflects the petitioner attempted/answered Question No.4. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the Respondent - University dated 27.8.2016 requesting for redressal of her grievance. The authorities of the University orally informed the petitioner that there is no provision for re-valuation in the University Rules/Guidelines quoting University's Notification dated 15.6.2012 (Annexure 'J'). Therefore, she is before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Krishna S. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the Respondent - University is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has answered/attempted Question No.4 in General Medicine Paper-I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS question paper. It is the duty cast upon the 6 Respondent - University to ensure due valuation of the answer sheet and say whether the petitioner has got any marks or not. In the present case, as can be seen from Annexure 'G' - Digital Evaluation Slip (Student Copy), question No.4 in Subject: General Medicine - paper-I [1093], the first Valuator observed as 'NA' (not answered) and second Valuator observed as Evaluation Level '0' (attended but no marks). Therefore, he contended that there is no valuation by two valuators at all. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the correct valuation to be made by the Respondent - University as sought for by allowing the writ petition.
8. Per contra, Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the Respondent - University, sought to justify the impugned action of the Respondent - University by relying upon the Notification dated 18.8.2012 especially Ordinance (6)(d), which reads as follows:-
"(6)(d) in case, where for a given question, one examiner has marked "NA" and another has given 7 marks, then the marks awarded by one examiner shall be posted against "NA" and new total marks is to be arrived. In case for a given question, if there are more than one marks, then the highest of these marks shall be awarded against "NA" (For example, say question no.9, first examiner has given 5 marks, second examiner has marked the question as "NA" and third examiner has given 2 marks, then 5 marks is to be assumed for question no.9 in valuation no.2 and new total is to be arrived for valuation 2)."
Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration of this Court is:-
"Whether the petitioner has made out a case to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to undertake evaluation of Petitioner's answer to Question No.4 in the subject General Medicine Paper-I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS examination held in May 2016?8
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
11. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has joined MBBS Course at Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B G Nagar, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District for the academic year 2011-12. The Respondent - University conducted examination for the MBBS Course and assigned register number to the petitioner as 11M8072 and she has cleared the Phase-I MBBS subjects in the examination held in December 2012; Phase-II MBBS subjects in the examination held in December 2014 and Phase-III Part-I MBBS subjects in the examination held in June/July 2015. The admitted fact that the petitioner has appeared for Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS Examination held in the month of May 2016, which consists of 4 subjects namely, Paediatrics, General Medicine, Surgery and Obstetrics & Gynaecology and in each subjects except in Paediatrics there are two theory papers. 9
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for the certified copy of her answer scripts of the General Medicine Papers-1 & II and came to know that though she had answered Question No.4 in Medicine Paper-1, the 1st evaluator has not evaluated the same and had mentioned as NA (Not Answered) against question No.4 in the Digital Evaluation Slip and the 2nd evaluator has awarded zero marks to the said question. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the Respondent - University dated 27.8.2016 requesting for redressal of her grievance. The authorities of the University said to have informed the petitioner orally that there is no provision for re-valuation in the University Rules/Guidelines quoting University's Notification dated 15.6.2012. When it was brought to the notice of the Respondent - University i.e, the mistake crept in by the valuators as per Digital Evaluation Slip (Student Copy), the same is not corrected by the respondent. Though an attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the 10 Respondent - University Sri N.K. Ramesh that as per Ordinance (6)(d), the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. It is relevant to state at this stage that the Notification dated 18.8.2012 pertains to Revised procedure for re-totalling (RT)/Photo-copy (PC) of answer-book. The said notification does not depict anything about 'valuation, re-valuation or multiple valuation'. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent - University cannot be accepted.
13. The records clearly indicates that the valuators of the Respondent - University has not at all followed the procedure as contemplated under Notification dated 15.6.2012 and the valuation of question No.4 in General Medicine Paper - I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS of the petitioner is nothing but single valuation, which is impermissible in Law. Therefore, the point raised in the present writ petition has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the petitioner has made out a case for issue of a 11 writ of mandamus directing the respondent to undertake evaluation of Petitioner's answer to Question No.4 in the subject General Medicine Paper-I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS examination held in May 2016.
14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The Respondent - University is directed to undertake evaluation of Petitioner's answer to Question No.4 in the subject General Medicine Paper-I of Phase-III Part-II (IV year) MBBS examination held in May 2016 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and re-issue the results in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*