Karnataka High Court
Shraddha A R vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 9 January, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
WP No. 22391 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.22391 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRADDHA A R
D/O A S RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
STUDENT STUDYING FOR
II YEAR BDS
MARATA MANDALA DENTAL COLLEGE
BELAGAVI
R/AT MOORU KALASHADA MUTT
SHANUBHOGARA BEEDI
ARASIKERE TOWN
HASSAN DSITRICT 573 103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANGADHARAPPA A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK
Digitally JAYANAGARA
signed by B BENGALURU - 560 041
LAVANYA REP BY REGISTRERAR (EVALUATION)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. PRINCIPAL
KARNATAKA MARATA MANDAL DENTAL COLLGE
BELAGAVI - 590 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 15.11.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
-2-
WP No. 22391 of 2022
R1 TO REVALUE THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE PETITIONER
RELATING TO Q.P CODE 1184/GENERAL/DENTAL
PHARMACOLOGY IN RESPECT OF THE EXAMINATION BDS-II
SEP 22 BEARING REG NO 20D1797 AND TO DECLARE THE
RESULT OF SUCH REVALUATION, AS REQUESTED IN HER
REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2022 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition preferred by the student studying BDS Course in respondent No.2 - College. The examination was conducted by the respondent No.1 - University during September 2022 for BDS - II relating to General and Dental Pharmacology subject, the respondent No.1 - University issued digital valuation slip for the above subject showing that the petitioner has secured total 21 marks in Evaluation-I and 25 marks in Evaluation-II and consequently it is declared that the petitioner has not secured the minimum marks as required for passing the said examination.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she secured photo copy of her answer book from respondent No.1 - University supplied through respondent No.2 - College relating to the said subject and was surprised to notice that valuation of the answer book has not been properly made. Accordingly, -3- WP No. 22391 of 2022 petitioner got her answer book evaluated from private experts on the subject, who are unanimous in their opinion that the petitioner should get not less than 35 marks on the basis of her answers in the answer papers and that the marks awarded to the petitioner was less.
3. Petitioner made representation on 28.10.2022 to the respondent No.1 requesting to revalue her answer paper of the above subject. The petitioner was orally informed that no revaluation of the answer book is permissible and was advised to prepare for the next examination in the said subject to be held during January 2023.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that evaluation of her answer books by the first evaluator and second evaluator is erroneous and they have not applied their mind in evaluation of answer book and have awarded less marks which is contrary to the 3rd and 4th evaluators, (privately engaged) who have opined after evaluating the answer books of the petitioner that she should get not less than 35 marks in the subject and that the marks awarded to her is less than what she should have been awarded.
-4-WP No. 22391 of 2022
5. Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent No.1 to reevaluate her answer book with regard to evaluation already done by first and second evaluators.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that refusal of reevaluation of answer book violates the principles of natural justice and her request to move one step ahead asking for third evaluator and to provide proper marks to the answers as per answer sheet is not entertained by the respondents.
7. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to revalue the answer book of the petitioner relating to Q.P. Code 1184 / General / Dental Pharmacology in respect of the examination BDS-II- SEP22 bearing Registration No.20D1797 and to declare the result of such revaluation as requested in her representation dated 28.10.2022.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. B.S. Sachin, representing respondent No.1 - University, primarily contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for the reason that the Rules and Regulations of the respondent No.1 - -5- WP No. 22391 of 2022 University and the Ordinance does not provide for third evaluator to evaluate answer scripts, unless there is difference in awarding total marks given by two evaluators exceeds 15 percent, only in such circumstances the third evaluator could evaluate the answer scripts.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University brings to the notice of the Court about the notification dated 29.03.2019 of respondent No.1 - University with respect to 'Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts'. It is his further submission that pursuant to the said Ordinance, subsequently another Ordinance is made on 05.09.2022, which supersede the earlier Ordinance dated 29.03.2019, wherein there is no scope for further reevaluation after the first evaluator and second evaluator have already made digital evaluation of the answer scripts.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University further opposes the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner on the ground of later Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 is prospective in nature and same will not be applicable to the case on hand.
-6-WP No. 22391 of 2022
11. Having considered the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and subsequent Ordinance passed on 05.09.2022, I am in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel, that the later Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 is prospective in nature and the same will not be applicable to the petitioner. Earlier Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 would be applicable to the petitioner and to the case on hand.
12. The Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 prescribes general evaluation and deviation evaluation, Ordinance No.4 and 5 is clear on this aspect and which reads as under:
"4. PROCEDURE FOR GENERAL VALUATION:
All answer scripts of undergraduate
courses in Medical/Dental/AYUSH/
Physiotherapy/Nursing/Pharmacy/Allied Health Sciences/Yoga and Naturopathy shall be subjected to Digital Valuation as prescribed by RGUHS. The average of the total marks awarded by the two evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for computation of the results.-7- WP No. 22391 of 2022
The marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained
5. PROCEDURE FOR DEVIATION VALUATION:
a. All the answer scripts where the difference in award of total marks between two evaluators in the general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to a 3rd evaluator for evaluation.
b. The average of the best two total marks, awarded by the three evaluators for the paper rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for final computation of the results.
c. The marks awarded and the results declared after deviation valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained."
13. From the above, it is clear that the procedure for deviation valuation is prescribed in Ordinance No.5, wherein it is stated that unless there is difference of 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, then the third -8- WP No. 22391 of 2022 evaluator would come into picture to evaluate the answer paper and marks awarded by the two evaluators. The average of the best two total marks, awarded by the three evaluators for the answer paper rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for final computation of the results.
14. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is diference of more than 15% of the marks or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, to refer to a 3rd evaluator for evaluation.
15. A similar matter was before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in similar circumstances in W.P. No.11101 of 2020 (EDN-RES) disposed of on 04.11.2020, wherein at Para-3 the Court observed thus:
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because the subject regulation prohibits revaluation where the answer scripts are valued by way of double evaluation method, as has happened in this case: the relevant portion of said provision reads as under:-9- WP No. 22391 of 2022
"2.Re-evaluation: Re-evaluation of theory papers in all years of study of the BDS course may be permissible by the university on application and remittance of a prescribed fee. Such answer script shall be re-evaluated by not less than two duly qualified examiners and the average obtained shall be awarded to the candidate and the result accordingly reconsidered. However in those universities where double evaluation provision exists, this provision of re- evaluation will not be applicable."
16. Having considered the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and the evaluation made, copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A to the writ petition and the average of marks do not exceed more than 15%, between the two evaluators. I do not find sufficient ground to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. In view of the fact that there is no further evaluation process provided by the respondent No.1 - University for third evaluator, unless it is covered under Ordinance dated 29.03.2019, where the marks difference is
- 10 -
WP No. 22391 of 2022more than 15% of marks. Hence, there is no scope for the third evaluator to come into play. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
18. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88