Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 199 (KAR)

Jeevith C. Reddy v. Register

2013-02-18

H.G.RAMESH

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the Ordinance governing the revaluation dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Syndicated of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences in the meeting held on 08.01.2010 at Annexure-C and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to declare the petitioner as pass in the Anatomy examination in M.B.B.S. (RS3) Phase-1 examination held on June 2011 and for such other relief. 2. Petitioner having joined M.B.B.S. course in Rajarajeshwary Medical College, Bangalore, appeared for the Phase-1 examination on June 2011 with Reg.No.10M3131. He is said to have scored good marks in all other subjects except in Anatomy subject. As per the rules and regulations of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, regarding revaluation, the answer paper of each subject has to be valued by two experts and if there is difference of more than 15 marks in two valuations, the answer paper has to be referred to the 3rd expert for valuation. The aggregate marks for passing the examination is 50%. This aggregate mark will be calculated by adding lowest total marks in three valuations. The petitioner has obtained total marks of 119 out of 240 in Anatomy-2 subject during Phase-1 examination on June 2011. He should have got minimum 120 marks and he fell short of by one mark to pass. According to the petitioner, this has happened because of the negligence during 3rd valuation by the 3rd expert. Hence, he is before this Court seeking for the above relief. 3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-University, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and that he having passed in the subsequent examination, he should have made it clear before the Court. It is stated that the first valuer awarded 32 marks for the answer of Anatomy paper 2 and second valuer awarded 50 marks. As per the notification of the University, each paper is subjected to two valuation and if the difference between two valuation is more than15 marks then, it will be subject to third valuation and as per the regulation of the University, average of the marks awarded by the third valuation and also marks close to it is taken into consideration. Accordingly, third valuation marks awarded to the petitioner is only 27, as such there is no scope for revaluation. 4. Accordingly, third valuation marks awarded to the petitioner is only 27, as such there is no scope for revaluation. 4. This Court cannot exercise power to get the paper reevaluated as is clear from the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 4116 in the case of Pramod kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service commission, Patna and others. The Apex Court has held that no candidate would have right to seek re-evaluation of answer books. In the relevant para, it is held that under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate maybe entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the cover page of the answer-book. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for reevaluation of his marks. It is held that the manner in which the learned single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified. It is also held that there can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated and the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and also held that there must be uniformity in standard in examine answer-books of all the candidates. As such, in order to achieve the object, such a evaluation of answer books is adopted. 5. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated and the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and also held that there must be uniformity in standard in examine answer-books of all the candidates. As such, in order to achieve the object, such a evaluation of answer books is adopted. 5. In the case on hand, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, when two of the valuaters have evaluated question No.22, though they have awarded marks which varies, there is no reason as to why third valuator assessed it as “O” mark and according to the petitioner, there is negligence on the part of the third valuator in awarding “O” mark to the relevant question, when two valuators have awarded marks to the same question and submitted that it is true that there is error or mistake committed in awarding marks and that cannot be accepted as the standard to accept the marks awarded by the third valuator when the answer is relevent or is correct. In that fact situation, this Court can very well exercise power of judicial review to set right the illegality due to negligence or due to mistake. 6. On going through the answer copy and also marks entered in third valuation, as per the Regulation, the third valuator has awarded only “O” mark for question No.22 and for the said question, both the earlier valuators awarded reasonable marks. 7. Now the situation confronted is when “O” is awarded whether the candidate deserves marks to be awarded for question No.22 or not. It appears that the procedure in awarding marks will be split up depending upon the ingredients of the answer being written. If the diagram is shown some marks is allotted to the diagram and for the explanation some marks. Here is a case, where two valuators have examined the paper and have awarded marks. The situation confronted is the candidate has very much made an attempt to write the answer, and has written half of the answer by way of drawing diagram and it should carry some marks. But for the said answer “O” is awarded. While evaluating for relevent answer, if “O” is awarded then definitely it is an apparent error or negligence in the process of re-valuation. The Court is not supporting the view of the petitioner nor directing respondent-University to re-evaluate the paper. But for the said answer “O” is awarded. While evaluating for relevent answer, if “O” is awarded then definitely it is an apparent error or negligence in the process of re-valuation. The Court is not supporting the view of the petitioner nor directing respondent-University to re-evaluate the paper. Having found an apparent mistake in awarding “O” to one of the answers wherein earlier valuators have awarded marks for the same, the Court can definitely form an opinion that it will carry some marks. 8. Normally, when the rules do not provide for revaluation, the Court also would not interfere but in the factual situation, when the relevant answer is given, and “O” mark is awarded, it cannot be accepted as marks awarded for a relevant answer. It is not a question of how the mark is awarded. As is held by the Apex Court, when mark is awarded, there could be variation of standard but that variation shall not be accepted to award “O” mark for the answer. In the fact situation, though rules do not provide for revaluation but when an apparent error has been committed, this Court has got jurisdiction to look into the illegality being committed and to direct the respondent-authority to do the needful. 9. The marks awarded by the Expert was summoned before this Court and it is kept in the sealed cover and there was also an interim direction issued to respondent-University to secure the Expert to look into that particular answer written by the candidate. The Expert who appeared before the Court, has awarded “1 ½” marks for question No.22. When “1 ½” marks is taken into consideration, it exceeds 120. Based on that, it is for the respondent-University to declare the result and the marks awarded by the Expert. 10. If any subsequent attempt is made by the petitioner to write the exam once again in apprehension of not getting favourable result/order and meanwhile, after he has passed the exam in the first attempt, it is for the petitioner to prefer/choose to retain the marks awarded as per the result of the writ petition, and such advantage shall be given to the preference of the candidate. The petitioner now intents to choose result of the first appearance than the subsequent/supplementary examination. The petitioner now intents to choose result of the first appearance than the subsequent/supplementary examination. When the petitioner prefers for to retain the result of the first attempt of Anatomy II paper, the University shall consider the same to add grace marks, if any, he is entitle for and declare his result. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.