Kerala High Court
Georgie P.Zachariah vs The University Of Kerala on 25 September, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAYOF JULY 2013/4TH SRAVANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 10436 of 2013 (D)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. GEORGIE P.ZACHARIAH,
T.C.3/1611, KDPMRA-37, OPP.VIJAYA BANK,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. NAVEEN JACOB VARGHESE,
SEONPURATHIL, CHEKKALAMUKKU,
SREEKARIAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.
3. SHINU SALEEM, HOME NO.19-D,
SREE NAGAR LANE, PARUTHIPPARA,
MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 025.
4. AJITH S.S., THIRUVONAM,
PARIYARAM MUKKOLA, NEDUMANGHADU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.
5. DIJO VARGHESE, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE,
ELANGAMANGALAM P.O., ENATHU,
PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT.
6. RAJASREE A.R., 'SREE VINAYAKAM',
VETTENAD MANDAPAM, VATTAPPARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.
BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,
SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
2. THE STUDENTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
WP(C).No. 10436 of 2013 (D)
3. THE SYNDICATE OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
P.M.S. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH GOLDEN HILLS, VENCODE P.O.,
VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, KERALA UTY.
R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR,
KUM.P.G.GAYATHRI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11/07/2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 10756 OF 2013 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 26/07/2013 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 10436 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER ISSUED BY THE KERALA
UNIVERSITY,BDS EXAMINATION, SEPTEMBER, 2012.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS
FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY NO.EE III A/2013
DT.29-01-2013.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER,
NO.SDC/1234/12 DT.18-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR
(EXAMS.I).
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STUDENTS DISCIPLINARY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 06-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF
THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE APPROVING EXHIBIT P4.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT.27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 2ND PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT. 27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 3RD PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT. 27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 4TH PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT. 27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 5TH PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT. 27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
TO THE 6TH PETITIONER NO.EE III A/2013 DT. 27-03-2013.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
2ND PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
WP(C).No. 10436 of 2013 (D)
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
3RD PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
4TH PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
5TH PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET DATED 25/09/2012 WITH
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (MCQ) OF THE
6TH PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL YEAR BDS DEGREE
EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/05/2013
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/05/2013
SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PMS/CMO/ADMN/NOT/21/13
DATED 04/02/2013 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PMS COLLEGE
OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, TRIVANDRUM, TO THE
PRINCIPAL, PMS COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 08/02/2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE PRINCIPAL, OMS COLLEGE, TO THE CHAIRMAN
PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH,
VATTAPPARA.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE
VICE PRINCIPAL, PMS COLLEGE, TO THE CHAIRMAN
PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH,
VATTAPPARA.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 08/02/2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PMS COLLEGE,
TO THE CHAIRMAN, PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH, VATTAPPARA.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 08/02/2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS,
THE PMS COLLEGE, TO THE CHAIRMAN, PMS COLLEGE OF
DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, VATTAPPARA.
WP(C).No. 10436 of 2013 (D)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R1A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/12/2012.
EXT.R1B COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.R1C COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.R1D COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.R1E COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXT.R1F COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXT.R1G COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
rs.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756,
10795, 12703, 14058, 15606,
and 15992 of 2013
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th July, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are final year students of the P.M.S College of Dental Science and Research. They are undergoing the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS for short) course. The issue involved in these writ petitions is with respect to Part II of the final year BDS examination. The University has cancelled Part II of the final year BDS examination of the petitioners on the allegation that the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Discipline at its meeting held that the petitioners resorted to mal-practice in the said examination. The petitioners were also debarred from appearing for any examination in the next chance.
2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that pursuant to the conduct of examination the results of the petitioners in respect of Part II were withheld. W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 2
3. The final year BDS examination consists of two Parts, Part I consisting of three papers and Part II consisting of four papers. One of the papers in Part II is Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics and Practice Management. The examination was held on 25.9.2012. It carries 100 marks for Theory, 100 marks for Practical, 50 marks for Viva Voce and 50 marks for Internal Assessment. The total marks for Part II consisting of four papers is 1200. For passing the theory examination, the candidates should secure a minimum of 45 marks out of the said 100 marks. The question paper in respect of Conservative Dentistry consists of theoretical questions as well as Multiple Choice Questions ('MCQ's for short). The question paper consists of Section A and Section B. Section A of the question paper consists of theoretical questions carrying 35 marks and Multiple Choice Questions carrying 15 marks. Same is the situation in W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 3 respect of Section B as well.
4. Though the University published the results of the final year examination in respect of all other colleges, the results of the petitioners were not declared. They received a memo from the University calling upon them to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. One such notice is Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 10436/2013. In Ext.P3 the students were called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them and they were called upon to be present with their parents before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Discipline. They appeared before the second respondent on 28.2.2013. They were told that there was serious suspicion of mal-practice committed by them in regard to Section A of Part II examination. The petitioners denied the said allegation. Ext. P1 in W.P.(C) No. 10436/2013 is the question paper .
W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 4
5. According to the petitioners, the Committee questioned them specifically on question Nos. 9 and 14 in Section A of MCQ's wherein they have all given the same answer which were incorrect. Ext. P4 is the Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate. They formed an opinion that question Nos. 9 and 14 were answered by almost all the students as option B which was a wrong answer and question No. 14 was answered by most of the students as option C which again was the wrong answer. It is on the basis of the aforesaid opinion that the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Discipline and it was resolved to approve the Minutes, the Syndicate also exonerated four candidates who had given different answers to the said questions. It was also decided to issue show cause notice to the Principal, Chief Superintendent and Invigilators and the Manager of the W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 5 college as to why they should not be penalised for preventing mal practice.
6. The main ground under which the petitioners challenge the above decision was that there is no material on record to prove that the petitioners were guilty of any mal-practice. An enquiry is required only in an instance where it is found that there was some mal- practice being noticed when the examination was being conducted. In the absence of any such mal- practice coming to the knowledge of the University authorities in accordance with Chapter XIV of the Examination Manual, there was no reason to constitute a committee for enquiring into the same.
7. Further it is contended that there is no rhyme or reason to form an opinion that if all the students have faired well in their examination, it amounts to suspicion of mal-practice. There is no case for the University that any W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 6 such mal practice was played with reference to the other papers and therefore this paper being only for 15 marks out of 300 marks for that particular paper, does not enable any of the students to get any advantage in the overall marks to be obtained. That apart, the reasoning of the committee that those persons who had written wrong answers in respect of two questions cannot be a reason for coming to a finding that there was mal-practice. Certain petitioners have also contended that in respect of question No.9 there were two correct answers and in respect of question No.14 all of them could be the correct answer. Therefore the argument of the petitioners is that giving wrong answers to two questions by several of the petitioners, it can only be treated as an instance that they were taught wrongly and cannot be treated as a reason to infer mal- practice.
W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 7
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 10756/2013 would contend that certain persons were exonerated as they have given a different answer to questions 9 and 14 other than the common wrong answer of B and C respectively. It is pointed out that the 4th petitioner had not given any answer to question No.9 and therefore she is entitled for the same treatment as has been done in respect of the other students who were exonerated. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the said contention can be appreciated and the said petitioner Smt. Parvathi Vijayan can be exonerated from the punishment imposed on her.
9. Counter affidavit is filed by the University inter alia contending that Dr. Mali G. Nair, Asst. Professor, Government Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram, who was the Chairman of the Examination as well as Dr. W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 8 Christatin, Associate Professor, Government Dental College who evaluated the answer scripts reported that they suspected mal-practice in a set of 33 answer scripts in the Multiple Choice Questions in the said subject. They have made such a statement on the basis that almost all the candidates were getting the same marks in MCQ in the said set of 33 answer scripts. According to them, it is very rare and unusual that all the students will have similar marks. Such similarity caught their attention and it was realised that in the majority of the answer scripts the incorrect answer marked first was scored off and the corrected answer was thereafter marked. This have given to a doubt regarding unfair means resorted at the time of examination. The answer papers were evaluated in a valuation camp. However, since there was no written complaint, the Chairman did not report the same. Ext.R1
(a) is the letter written by the chairman. The University on W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 9 receiving Ext. R1(a) withheld the results of the students who have indulged in the mal-practice. It was found that the students belonged to the same college. They were called for a hearing and the Principal of the college Dr. Mali G. Nair and Dr. Christatin were also heard in the matter. On the basis of the statements furnished, the Committee passed Ext.P4 order. The reason put forward for such suspicion was that 30 out of 33 candidates marked the wrong option B and C respectively in respect of question Nos. 9 and 14 when the correct answers were A and D respectively. Petitioners are persons who got both the answers wrong.
10. It is contended that in the case of objective type of examinations the only method of determining copying is through assessment of probability of copying. The Committee had no malice against the petitioners and when they have found that there is no possibility of such W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 10 answering by the students, there is no reason to challenge the same. It is further argued that the University has to take care of a situation where no mal-practice is permitted and therefore the University prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. The question to be considered in the above writ petition is the validity of Ext.P4 Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee. On a perusal of Ext.P4 Minutes it is seen that it was constituted with three members who heard the version of the Chairman of the Examination Mali G. Nair and Dr. Christatin. They stated before the Committee that in the set of 33 answer scripts the students were getting same marks in the MCQ's. This according to them was very rare and when they analysed the answer scripts they noticed lot of similarities in the answers. In most of the answer scripts, the answers first marked were cancelled and the correct answers were W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 11 subsequently entered. Majority of the students had opted the same option which was a wrong answer for two out of 15 questions. It is further noticed that 10 students had marked the correct option for the question and eventually finalising the wrong option, the very same option as rest of the students. These situations had given rise to a suspicion. It is also found that on completion of the valuation camp, one of the examiners posted for duty informed the Chairman that similar complaints pertaining to a particular set of MCQ answer sheets of 33 numbers in respect of other papers of final BDS were also noticed, but she did not report the same to the University as there was no written complaint in that case.
12. The Committee further found on the basis of hearing and after examination that out of 15 multiple choice questions, in respect of 2 questions namely question Nos. 9 and 14, the correct options were A and D W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 12 respectively. Except 3 candidates, all others marked the same wrong answer for question No. 9. Out of the 33 candidates, except three candidates, all others marked the same wrong answer C for question No. 14. Therefore the Committee found that except for the five persons who had given wrong answers for question Nos. 9 and 14, there is a probability of others involving in mal-practice. Therefore they recommended cancellation of the examinations written by all other 28 candidates and debarred them from appearing in the University examination in the next available chance. They could write the examination only after the available chance.
13. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no material to indicate that the petitioners were involved in mal-practice. There was only a probability of mal-practice. The petitioners are students who had faired well in Paper I examination and W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 13 therefore there is no reason to doubt their competence. There is no complaint by either the Principal, Invigilators or other staff of the college complaining that the petitioners were involved in any form of mal practice. If the petitioners are taught a particular answer, there is always a possibility of the answers being same. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly objects to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. According to them, by analysing the wrong answers in respect of two questions cannot be a criteria to decide mal-practice as it is possible that the students may give a wrong answer to a particular question. That apart, it is argued that even question No. 9 have two answers and question No. 14 have all the four answers correct.
14. The question is whether this Court can interfere with an adjudication process of the Committee of the Syndicate especially when the three member committee W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 14 consists of experts in the field of education and they are well-aware of the manner in which answer papers are to be evaluated and are competent to analyze any form of mal practice.
15. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was made by the Chairman of the Evaluation Committee who based his complaint on a written complaint by another Associate Professor who was involved in the evaluation. It is not in doubt that false numbers will be given in the answer papers and therefore the persons involved in valuation will not know about the identity of the students. They noticed that one batch of answer papers, 33 of them obtained unusual marks and they had doubt regarding the same. It was thereafter the University had verified and had found out from which college the said 33 answer sheets were sent. Therefore it could be seen that the respondents or the committee as the case has acted only W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 15 in due course and there is no allegation of mala fides or bias against them. Therefore what is required to be considered is only whether the impugned order is passed without any basis.
16. The members of the committee who had considered this case had formed an opinion based on their expertise in valuing answer sheets. Therefore the method by which they have come to the conclusion about mal-practice is definitely a possible method and cannot be found fault with. In such circumstances, I do not think that there will be any scope for judicial review.
17. The file in this connection has been placed before this court. I have verified the files and an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for petitioners to verify the files. The answer sheets were also verified along with other documents.
W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 16
18. It is argued that in so far as there is no correction in the answer sheets, the finding of the Committee is wrong. The Committee had come to a finding that in majority of the cases, the wrong answer was corrected by using whitener and the correct answer was incorporated. But it is relevant to note that the reasons stated for coming to such a conclusion is not purely based on the corrections made in the document. This has been done on the basis of common mistake committed by 28 of the petitioners by giving the same wrong answer to two questions. When a competent authority decides while considering mal- practice in respect of MCQ's, that marking the same wrong answer by 28 students for 2 questions, is an indication of mal practice, this Court exercising power under Article 226 will not be justified in taking a different view. It cannot be stated that the view expressed by the committee was not possible at all. They are experts in the W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 17 field. They had received a complaint from the Chairman and the one of the valuers who found that there was something wrong in respect of one batch of answer papers, which on verification proved that there was some mal- practice in answering the said question. No doubt the finding is only on the basis of a probability but in such cases absolute proof is not warranted. Hence I do not intend to interfere with the finding of fact by the Committee at Ext.P4.
19. The next contention urged is regarding the punishment. The students were debarred from writing the examination during the next chance which was already over. But the University has cancelled the entire second part examination. According to the petitioners there is no reason to withhold the second part examination as the probability of a mal-practice is noticed only in respect of one paper in Part II. That apart the 15 marks for Part II W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 18 paper is out of 1200 marks which may not have any bearing in the total marks given to the petitioners.
20. But it is relevant to note that the minimum marks required for this particular paper and for Theory is 45 out of 100 which includes the aforesaid 15 marks as well. Part B section also has 15 marks for MCQ's. Therefore if there is any manipulation in the answering of MCQ's, it will definitely have a bearing on the marks to be obtained in the Theory of that paper. Therefore there is justification on the part of the University in cancelling the examination of the said paper. But then the question is whether the entire Part II examination should be cancelled. No doubt these are all matters to be considered by the competent authority i.e Standing Committee as well as the Syndicate, but the fact remains that in Ext.P4 finding has been entered only on the basis of a probability the not on the basis of any other material. As already indicated such W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 19 manipulations are possible and I do not any find anything wrong with the authorities having expressed an opinion as seen in Ext.P4. But still since there was no complaint from the college and none of the Invigilators have raised any complaint, when the decisions are taken on the basis of probability, the question would be whether such a drastic punishment should be imposed on the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved charges. Hence I am inclined to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioners by the University as follows:
a. Ext.P4 direction to the extent which cancels the entire Part II examination is modified by limiting the cancellation only in respect of the paper on Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics and Practice Management and except that paper, in respect of other papers the result shall be published by the University. W.P.(C) Nos. 10436, 10756, 1079512703, 14058, 15606, and 15992 of 2013 20 b. In respect of 4th petitioner in writ petition No.10756/2013, the impugned orders are set aside and there will be a direction to declare her results.
Writ petitions are partly allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
rka /true copy/