Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The 1999 Ordinance reads as under:

"(A) Para 3 (ii) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (Provision for double valuation) Ordinances, 1999 reads as under:
"DOUBLE VALUATION"
"ii. All answer papers wherein the difference in award of marks between the first and second value is 20% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for that paper, shall be referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from the approved panel. The average marks of any two valuations close to each other shall be the final marks to be awarded for declaration of result. If the difference between any of the two valuations out of the three is same, then the award for declaration of result shall be chosen to the best advantage of the candidate. In all other cases, the average of the marks awarded by the first and second valuers shall be taken as final."

(C) Paragraph 4 of 2012 "Ordinance Governing Multiple valuation", published vide Notification dated 15.06.2012 reads as under:

"4. PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE VALUATION:
(i) All the answer-papers which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.
(ii) All the answer-papers which are subjected for four valuations, wherein the difference in 88 award of marks between FOUR valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to FIFTH examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.

(E) 2017 Ordinance promulgated vide Notification dated 17.10.2017 for the examinations of P.G. Degree and Diploma Courses, paragraph (b) whereof, reads as under:

"b) In the answer paper, if the difference in the marks awarded between four evaluators is equal to or more than 15%, such answer papers shall be referred to 5th valuation."

11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta.vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Another(W.P.No.31335/2019) along with connected writ petitions while interpreting 13(2) of 1997 Regulation with that of Regulation 14(1)(b) of the MCI Post Graduate Medical Regulations 2000 (MCI Regulations, 2000) was not inclined to accede to the contentions of respondent- University that amended MCI Regulations 2019 adopting double valuation method has to be implemented retrospectively. The learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that amended MCI Regulations 2019 is prospective in nature and even if the MCI Regulations 2019 on account of prospective application may open a flood gate of litigations cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the similarly placed students in availing four valuation system even for undergraduate medicine students. In operative portion, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court however left it to the wisdom of respondent-University to re-promulgate similar Ordinance if and when it duly adopts double valuation method under the now amended MCI Regulations.

33. This Court is also not inclined to entertain the claim made by the students as to how the deviation valuation is to be adopted. The petitioners claim that while determining deviation, the respondent-University should take into consideration the difference in award of marks between two valuations and not difference in award of marks between two valuators as against maximum marks prescribed for the paper. I am unable to understand as to how the petitioners can insist that the deviation valuation has to be done in a particular manner when more particularly the Committee of Academic Council, the Syndicate and also the Advisory Board of Medical Council of India have approved the method of double valuation system and also have approved the deviation valuation.