Telangana High Court
Dr. Peddi Santosh vs The State Of Telangana on 5 August, 2019
Author: A.Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.13965, 14013 and 16487 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and same, they are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that they are all prosecuting Post Graduation Degree/Diploma courses in Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences at Warangal. Now their grievance is that during the Final Year examination held in the month of April, 2019, their answer sheets were evaluated only by two examiners instead of four examiners as prescribed in Regulation 14 (1) (b) of Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, (for short 'the Regulations'). Their further grievance is that evaluation of their answer sheets was also not done properly as no markings were given while evaluating their answer sheets digitally, instead a separate sheet is attached to the answer sheets awarding marks and the same is not in consonance with the law laid by this Court in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relied on Regulation 14 (1) (b) of the Regulations and submits that the said Regulation has to be followed scrupulously by the University and only in exceptional cases, the University can resort to 1 2016 (6) ALT 408 (S.B.) 2 2017 (6) ALT 213 2 Regulation 14 (1) (c) that too with prior approval of the Medical Council of India, whereas the same is not followed in the present cases, which is in violation of Regulation 14 (1) (b) of the Regulations as well as the law laid down by this Court in the above referred cases.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that Regulation 14 (1) (b) applies only to practical examination and not to theoretical examination. He also submits that the respondent-University is not a party to the judgments referred to above. According to him, the respondent- University understood that Regulations 14 (1) (b) and 14 (1) (c) of the Regulations apply only to practical examination.
5. On the other hand, leaned Standing Counsel appearing for Medical Council of India in W.P.No.13965 of 2019 submits that Regulation 14 (1) (b) and 14 (1) (c) apply to all the examination both theoretical and practical; said Regulation does not make any distinction between practical and theoretical examination; and the Regulation cannot be understood in any other manner as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University.
6. Since the facts are not in dispute in these matters and since all the petitioners have completed their PG Degree/Diploma courses in Medicine, the issues left for consideration of this Court in these writ petitions are 'whether the four examiners have evaluated the theoretical papers?', 'whether valuation is done by digital mode' and 'whether the examiners have awarded marks to each answer?'. 3
7. Regulation 14 (1) (b) and 14 (1) (c) read as under:
'14 (1) (b) For all Post Graduate Examinations, the minimum number of Examiners shall be four, out of which at least two (50%) shall be External Examiners, who shall be invited from other recognized universities from outside the State. Two sets of internal examiners may be appointed one for M.D./M.S. and one for diploma.
14 (1) (c) Under exceptional circumstances, examinations may be held with 3 (three) examiners provided two of them are external and Medical Council of India is intimated the justification of such action prior to publication of result for approval. Under no circumstances, result shall be published in such cases without the approval of Medical Council of India.'
8. A reading of the above Regulation clearly goes to show that no distinction was made between theoretical and practical examination.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- University could not point out the definition of the examination either in the said Regulations or in any other relevant Rules and Regulations framed by the University or in any decision of the respondent-University.
10. This Court in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (1 supra) considered the issue and held that the answer sheets shall be evaluated by four examiners out of whom two should be internal examiners and two should be external examiners and the said ratio was again followed by this Court in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (2 supra).
11. The Medical Council also understood in similar way. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of the respondent-University that Regulation 14 (1) (b) and 14 (1) (c) apply only in respect of practical examination, merit no consideration. In 4 view of the same, the action of the respondent-University in not following Regulations 14 (1) (b) is illegal, arbitrary and against the Regulations made by the Medical Council of India.
12. As far as digital evaluation is concerned, learned Standing Counsel placed a bunch of papers before this Court. But, those papers do not reflect that the digital evaluation is done as per the guidelines lad down by this Court in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (2 supra).
13. The next aspect which was canvassed before this Court is that even if four examiners (two internal and two external) evaluate the marks, which marks are to be considered for assessing the overall performance of the candidate.
14. Said issue was also dealt by this Court in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (2 supra) in paras 20 and 21 and held that average of marks awarded by the four examiners has to be taken into account. This Court also found that neither the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India nor the Rules and Regulations of NTR Health University provided any mechanism as to how the marks awarded by the four examiners have to be taken into account for evaluating the overall performance of the candidates. The respondent-University has not placed any material/Rules/Regulations or any decision of the University regarding the same.
15. In the above background, all the three writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent-University to get evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioners by four examiners, out of whom two should be internal examiners and two should be external examiners, and follow the guidelines laid down by this Court regarding digital 5 evaluation in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (2 supra) and average of the marks awarded by the four examiners has to be taken into account for assessing the overall performance of the candidates in the PG Degree/Diploma courses. Such exercise has to be carried out also in respect of all the failed candidates since there cannot be any discrimination in evaluation of the answer scripts.
16. Since the counsel appearing for the petitioners expressed urgency in the matter in view of ensuing counseling for Super Specialty courses, the respondent-University shall conclude the entire exercise within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_______________________ A.Rajasheker Reddy, J 5th August, 2019.
sur