Karnataka High Court
Dr.T.M.Prasanna Kumar vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 17 November, 2022
-1-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022
C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.16997 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.17040 OF 2022
IN WP No.16997 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DR. PRABHU N
S/O P NARAYANA
AGED 25 YEARS
UNI REG NO.17AT077
R/O 'MALA HOUSE' KONAJE VILLAGE
KADYA POST
PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574230
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560041
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court 2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
of Karnataka
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560070
3. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM
OF MEDICINE
-2-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022
C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA
AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN
THE BOARD OF AYURVEDA
NO.61-65
INSITUTUTIONAL AREA
JANAKPURI D BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110058
BY ITS PRESIDENT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2;
MS. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST GRADUATE,
INCLUDING PG-DIPLOMA AND SUPER SPECIALTY ANSWER
SCRIPTS EVALUATION VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.03.2019
WITH NO.RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19 ISSUED
BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.
IN WP No.17040 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DR. T M PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O T S MOHANRAM
AGED 46 YEARS
UNI REG NO.16AP429
R/O 41676, VANDIYUR MAIN ROAD
SADHSSHIVA NAGAR, MADURAI
TAMIL NADU-625 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-3-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022
C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560041
REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560070
3. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM
OF MEDICINE
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA
AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN
THE BOARD OF AYURVEDA
NO.61-65
INSITUTUTIONAL AREA
JANAKPURI D BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110058
BY ITS PRESIDENT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2;
MS. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST GRADUATE,
INCLUDING PG-DIPLOMA AND SUPER SPECIALTY ANSWER
SCRIPTS EVALUATION VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.03.2019
WITH NO.RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19 ISSUED
BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022
C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 29th March, 2019-Ordinance governing valuation of answer-scripts of PG, PG-Diploma and Super- specialty courses, issued by the respondent-University.
2. Facts in brief are that, the petitioners, who are the students of Final year MS Ayurveda (RS3), have failed in the subject of Shalya Samnya/Panchakarma Examinations of November, 2021 and July 2021 respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioners that petitioners have completed three years course of study and are eligible to take examination of final MS Ayurveda (RS3) scheme. The principal claim of the petitioners is, the examination process conducted by the respondent-University in the year 2018 incorrect wrong and contrary to the Regulations provided by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and in supersession of the Indian Medicine Central (Post Graduate Education) Regulations, 1979 and the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulation, 2016 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). The bone of contention of -5- WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 the petitioners is, the respondent-University has arbitrarily evaluated the answer-scripts of the petitioners and has not followed the Regulations while examining the answer-scripts of the PG-Ayurveda examination, which mandates for evaluation by, at least, two internal and two external examiners. Hence these petitions are filed.
On service of notice respondents entered appearance and filed statement of objection.
Heard Sri Abhishk Malipatil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University.
Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that petitioners had taken Post Graduate MS Ayurveda (RS3) Examination. The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the Regulations produced at Annexure-C, and by referring to Clause 14 of the Regulations, he contended that insofar as answer-scripts of the final examination is concerned, the same should be evaluated by a team of four examiners, out of which, two examiners shall be -6- WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 external from any other institution. Referring to the Digital Valuation Slip (Annexure-B), he contended the respondent- University has not followed the Regulations and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of DR. HARITHA RAVIPATI v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1988; and in the case of SRI NEELESH MEHTA v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ANOTHER made in writ petition No.31335 of 2019 and connected petitions decided on 10th August, 2020.
On the other hand, Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent-University, contended that petitioners having appeared in the examinations and failed, they have no locus standi to challenge the Ordinance/Notification dated 29th March, 2019, that the valuation made by the respondent- University is contrary to the Regulation. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in the case of DESMOND DOMINIC REGO v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES reported in (1999)3 KarLJ 391 and contended that the -7- WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 petitioners were well aware about the methodology adopted by the University at the time of appearing for examinations and having failed in the examinations, they cannot contend that the impugned Ordinance is bad in law. Emphasising on these aspects, Sri B.S. Sachin argued that the interference of the Court in educational matters is very limited and therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability also.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had appeared in the Final MS Ayurveda (RS3) examinations of July 2021 and November, 2021 and failed in the subject Panchakarma/Shalya Samnya. In view of the challenge made to Notification dated 29th March, 2019, I have carefully examined Clause 14 of the Regulations. The same reads thus:
"14. Mode of Examination and appointment of examiner(s)--8-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022
1. The preliminary examination and final examination shall be held in written, practical or clinical and oral examination.
2. The preliminary examination shall be conducted by a team of two examiners, out of which one examiner shall be external from any other institution and the final examination shall be conducted by a team of four examiners, out of which two examiners shall be external from any other institution.
3. A teacher with five years teaching or research experience in concerned subject or speciality shall be considered eligible for being appointed as an examiner."
The language employed in Clause 14 of the Regulations provides that there should be four examiners evaluating the answer-scripts of the final examination, out of which, two examiners shall be external from any other institution. That means, every answer-script of the final year student should be evaluated by four examiners.
I have noticed that the respondent-University has issued Notification dated 29th March, 2019, wherein Clause (1) of "Definitions" reads as under:
-9-
WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 "1. General valuation:
(a) Means four evaluations conducted by four independent valuators of a particular theory answer script in PG-Medical/Dental-Degree and Diploma, Super-speciality, PG-Homeopathy courses;
(b) Means two valuations conducted by two independent valuators for a particular answer script in case of PG-Allied Health sciences, PG-Ayurvveda, PG-Nursing, PG-Pharmacy, PG-Unani, PG-Yoga and Naturopathy, Masters in Physiotherapy, MHA and MPH."
(underlining emphasised) The aforementioned provision provides for two valuations for a particular answer-script in the case of PG-Ayurveda, which is contrary to Clause 14(2) of Regulations, since the Regulation provides for four examiners. However, the impugned Notification provides for two examiners for PG-Ayurveda course. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University is contrary to Clause 14 of the Regulations.
- 10 -
WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 I have also given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University that the scope of interference by the Courts in educational matters is limited. However, it is well established principle that if this Court arrives at a conclusion that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University is contrary to the parental Act and is arbitrary in nature, then it is the bounden duty of this Court to exercise its extraordinary power in writ jurisdiction. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS v. GOURAV ASHWIN JAIN reported in (2007)4 SCC 737; and in the case of UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION v. NEHA ANIL BOBDE reported in (2013)10 SCC 599 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Court shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts of the Court.
Having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to
- 11 -
WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission are of technical matters in academic field, normally, Courts will not interfere in such matters. However, if the Courts arrive at a conclusion that there is violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations, malafides and the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious in nature, it is the duty of this Court to interfere and set right the anomaly caused on account of the procedure adopted by the University which is contrary to the parent Act, presently, the impugned Notification is contrary to Clause 14 of the Regulations. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petitions are allowed;
ii) Impugned Notification dated 29th May 2019 by the respondent-University insofar as PG-
Ayurveda examinations, is set aside as contrary to Regulations and unconstitutional;
iii) Respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct fresh evaluation of the theory answer paper of
- 12 -
WP No. 16997 OF 2022 C/W WP NO.17040 OF 2022 Panchakarma/Shalya Samnya of Final MS Ayurveda (RS3) Examinations of July 2021 and November, 2021 respectively, in respect of the petitioners, and announce the result thereof within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72