Shri. Sanket N Kashipur vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 9 August, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri. Sanket N Kashipur vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 9 August, 2018

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.28982/2018 (EDN-RES)

Between:

Shri. Sanket N. Kashipur
S/o Nagaraj
Aged about 22 years
Residing at No.9, 9th Cross
Attur Muneshwara Temple Layout
Muneshwara Temple
Karnataka - 560 064.
                                              ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Yatish, Advocate)

And:

1.     Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science
       4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar
       Bengaluru - 560 041.
       Represented by its
       Registrar (Evaluation)

2.     Sri. Mallikarjun Ayurvedic Medical College
       Ayurved Medical College
       Hospital and Research Centre
       Vijayapur - 586 103.
       Represented by its Principal
                                           ...Respondents

(By Sri. N. K. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for R-1)
                             2



      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
marksheet of the petitioner issued by the respondents
vide Annexure-C and direct the respondents to declare
that the petitioner has passed the Moulika Siddhantha
Evem Astange Hridaya Paper (Revised Scheme-4) by
according him 2 marks or in the alternative to provide
(third) revaluation of the Moulika Siddaantha Evem
Astanga Hridaya (Revised Scheme-4), Q.P. Code 3008.

     This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-

                        ORDER

Petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.1 to re-evaluate petitioner's answer scripts in the subject 'Moulika Siddantha Evam Astanga Hridaya (Sutrastana)' and grant such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is pursuing his 3rd year Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine Science course (hereinafter referred to as 'B.A.M.S' for the sake of brevity) at Sri Mallikarjun Ayurvedic Medical College, Bijapur; that he appeared in 2nd year B.A.M.S examination held in the month of February 2018; he 3 appeared in all the subjects of the second year including the subject 'Moulika Siddhantha Evem Astanga Hridaya (revised scheme -4)'. The question paper in the said subject was for 100 marks. His answer scripts were evaluated. In the 1st valuation, the petitioner secured 36 (thirty six) marks out of 100 marks and in the 2nd valuation, he secured 50 (fifty) marks out of 100 marks. The difference between the 1st and 2nd valuation is 14 (fourteen) marks. In the circumstances, petitioner has sought for 3rd valuation of the answer scripts.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

4. Petitioner's counsel submits that no doubt under the Ordinance of the respondent-University issued by notification dated 15.06.2012, all papers would be subject to three valuation if the difference in marks is 15% between the first two evaluations. But, as per the procedure for digital valuation, if the difference in marks 4 in 1st and 2nd valuation is 14.5%, then it is rounded off to 15% itself and such a candidate has benefit of three valuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the difference is as high as 14 marks and also petitioner must be given the benefit of such 3rd valuation. In this regard, learned counsel drew my attention to the notification dated 15.06.2012 and has sought relief in the instant case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-University, who has appeared by way of assistance and advance notice, submits that the difference of marks between 1st and 2nd valuation being only 14 (fourteen) marks and not 14.5 (fourteen and half) which would then be read as 15 (fifteen) marks on being rounded off, petitioner cannot have the benefit of notification dated 15.06.2012 i.e., Clause 4(i) thereof. Therefore, this Court may not grant any benefit of 3rd valuation to the petitioner contrary to what has been stipulated by 1st respondent-University.

6. I have perused the Ordinance concerning multiple valuation. Clause 4(i) states all the answer scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference between the marks in two evaluations is more than 15% shall be referred to third examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel. While recording 15%, the University has taken into consideration the cut off valuation as 14.5% and reading it as 15% by rounding off fraction.

7. Therefore, in respect of any answer script, if the difference between the 1st and 2nd evaluation is 14.5% then on rounding off the said figure to 15% such answer scripts would be subjected to 3rd evaluation. Any direction to be issued by this Court would be contrary to the stipulation as per notification dated 15.06.2012 which has published Ordinance of multiple valuation. 6

In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Mds/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court