Karnataka High Court
Dr Madhubendra Bhuyan vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 4 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31774
WP No. 22932 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 22932 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. MADHUBENDRA BHUYAN
S/O LATE DR. MAHIM CHANDRA BHUYAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
B M ROAD, AMOLAPATTY
NAGAON-782001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLCOK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560041
BY ITS REGISTRAR(EVALUATION)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA 2. DR B R AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE
Location: High KADUGONDANAHALLI
Court of BENGALURU-560045
Karnataka BY ITS PRINCIPAL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O DATED 20.02.2023 R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SUBJECT THE
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONER REVALUED IN
RESPECT OF PAPER-1 AND 2 IN DCP-CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31774
WP No. 22932 of 2022
DEGREE EXAMINATION OF APRIL-2015 BEARING
REG.NO.13DP201.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for mandamus directing the respondent - University to revaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner of Paper I and II in DCP-Clinical Pathology Degree examination of Pathology Degree examination of April-2015 bearing Register No.13DP201.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The petitioner was admitted to Diploma in Clinical Pathology course in respondent No.2 - College for the academic year 2013-14. The petitioner had taken the examination held in the month of April 2015. The petitioner declared as fail in the examination. The petitioner submitted an application for revaluation of answer scripts of paper I and II of DCP-Clinical Pathology -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31774 WP No. 22932 of 2022 and submitted an application to furnish the answer scripts. The University failed to furnish the answer scripts of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the in action on the part of the respondent - University, filed writ petition in W.P.No.23422/2017 seeking mandamus directing the University to supply the answer scripts. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2020 directing the respondent - University to furnish copy of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The respondent - University did not furnish the certified copy of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The petitioner filed contempt petition in CCC.No.28/2021. In the said contempt proceedings, the soft copies of the answer scripts where furnished to the petitioner in the month of February, 2021. It is contended that the examination consists of three theory papers which carries 100 marks each and practical/viva which carries 150 marks. Out of three theory papers in paper I, the petitioner was awarded with 37 marks out of 100, in paper II the petitioner was awarded with 40 marks out of 100 and in paper III the -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31774 WP No. 22932 of 2022 petitioner was awarded with 57 marks out of 100. In practical/viva out of 150 marks the petitioner has secured 118 marks. After going through the answer scripts and the Digital Valuation slip, the petitioner came to know that paper I has undergone 4 evaluations. The first evaluator gave 43 marks, second evaluator gave 36 marks, third evaluator gave 32 marks and fourth evaluator gave 37 marks. Paper II has undergone 5 evaluations. The first evaluator awarded 38 marks, second awarded 41 marks, third evaluator awarded 21 marks, fourth evaluator awarded 50 marks and fifth evaluator awarded 32 marks.
Thus, there is erratic evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application by e-mail for revaluation of his answer scripts of paper I and II on 22.03.2021. The petitioner did not considered the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Respondent No.1 filed the statement of objections contending that as per notification dated -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31774 WP No. 22932 of 2022 15.06.2012, the marks awarded and results declared after considering notification shall be final and under no circumstance, further valuation shall be entertained. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application vide Annexure-D. The respondent - University has not considered the application and passed any order on the said application. Hence, he prays to pass an order directing respondent No.1 to consider Annexure-D and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is granted to respondent -6- NC: 2023:KHC:31774 WP No. 22932 of 2022 No.1, respondent No.1 would consider Annexure-D, in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order.
7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider Annexure-D in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SSB