Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2130 (KAR)

Syed Shoeb Ali v. Vice Chancellor

2019-11-04

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2019
ORDER : 1. In these three petitions, the petitioners who answered the MBBS Examination held in the month of June-2019 have sought for revaluation of the answers scripts by the third evaluator. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.204700/2019, Smt. Hema L. Kulakarni has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.48194-48198/2018 & 48669-673/2018 dated 21.08.2012 pointed out that this Court has laid down a formula for determining the deviation of valuation and by applying this formula, the difference between the marks awarded by the first evaluator and the second evaluator in the case of the petitioner in W.P.no.204700/2019 works out to 16.5% and therefore the petitioner is entitled for revaluation by the third evaluator in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2019. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.204723-20724/2019 and W.P.No.204729/2019 have referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.382/2019 (EDN-RES) dated 10.01.2019 and would submit that as held in the above decision the contentions urged by the petitioners are required to be considered by the Registrar and therefore seek to remit the matter to the Registrar of respondent No.1 University to workout the percentage of difference of marks between the two evaluation and if it is found that the said difference is more than 15% then there will be no impediment for the respondent to refer the answers script of the petitioners for third evaluation in terms of the above notification dated 29.03.2019. 4. Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, standing counsel appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.204700/2019, however contested the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Hema L. Kulakarni, and pointed out that the formula laid down by this Court in W.P.No.48194-48198/2018 and connected matters pertains to the notification issued by respondent No.1 for the examination of the year 2012. In the said notification, the University failed to specify as to whether the percentage difference has to be worked out on the basis of the two evaluation or against the maximum marks prescribed for each paper and in that context, this Court devised a formula, which was applicable only to the notification issued for the year 2012. In the said notification, the University failed to specify as to whether the percentage difference has to be worked out on the basis of the two evaluation or against the maximum marks prescribed for each paper and in that context, this Court devised a formula, which was applicable only to the notification issued for the year 2012. It is submission of the learned counsel that in view of the said decision, the omission noted by the Court has been rectified by the University in the subsequent notification dated 29.03.2019 and it is specifically provided therein that the third evaluation would be permitted only in case of difference of 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the concerned paper. Referring to the factual matrix of this case, the learned counsel would submit that in the case of the petitioner in the W.P.No.204700/2019 , the first evaluator has awarded 42.5 marks; whereas the second evaluator has awarded 36 marks. By applying the formula prescribed in the notification dated 29.03.2019, the difference comes to 6.5% [( x - y ) > 0.15 X Z]. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.204700/2019 is not entitled for revaluation by the third evaluator and thus seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. In so for as the other two petitions are concerned, Sri. Sandeep V. Patil and Amresh S. Roja, learned counsel submit that the respondents have no objection to refer the matter for consideration by the Registrar of respondent No.1 to workout whether the percentage difference of marks secured by the petitioners is within 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the concerned paper as per the above ordinance/ notification. 6. I have scrutinized the material on record and the decisions relied on by the respective counsels. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, that the formula devised by this Court in W.P.Nos.48194-48198/2018 and connected matters pertains only to the notification of the year 2012. This Court devised the formula to workout the difference apparently on account of the ambiguity in the notification of the year 2012 by not specifying as to whether the percentage has to be worked out against the maximum marks prescribed for the paper or on the basis of difference of percentage between two evaluations made by the evaluators. This Court devised the formula to workout the difference apparently on account of the ambiguity in the notification of the year 2012 by not specifying as to whether the percentage has to be worked out against the maximum marks prescribed for the paper or on the basis of difference of percentage between two evaluations made by the evaluators. But this ambiguity having been cleared in the notification of the year 2019, in view of the subsequent decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.382/2019, I find it proper to refer the matter to the Registrar of respondent No.1 University to determine whether the percentage difference of marks between the two evaluations is 15% or more and if found that the said difference is more than 15% the answers scripts of the petitioners be referred to the third evaluator in accordance with the notification dated 29.03.2019. 7. Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed in part. Writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to refer the subject answer scripts of the petitioners for third valuation, if percentage difference after calculation by the Registrar of the University works out to be 15% and above the maximum marks prescribed for the concerned paper, which exercise shall be completed within seven days from the date of release of this order.