AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner wrote the RUHS M.Sc. (med.) examination,2018 as a Group-A i.e. MBBS/BDS candidate with Roll No. 700140. On 24.8.2018, the
respondent â€" RUHS released the provisional result on its website, according to which the petitioner secured 41 marks. The petitioner’s case in
this petition is that the answer key, on the basis of which the result was declared on 24.8.2018 and merit list prepared was absolutely erroneous in
respect of question nos. 4, 8 and 11 for Group-A i.e. MBBS/BDS candidates. And resultantly the petitioner lost 3 marks despite giving the correct
answers as is substantiated by well recognized medical text-books. In the circumstances, the petitioner claims to have approached the respondents
with an application stating her grievance as regards the incorrect answer key for question no. 4, 8 and 11 aforesaid and also annexed therewith the
relevant portion of the well regarded and recognized medical text-books to demonstrate as to how the answer key on the said questions on which
the paper was evaluated was wrong and had wrongly evaluated the candidates who wrote the M.Sc. (Med.) examination, 2018 as part of Group A. It
was prayed that the merit of the candidates in Group A at the said examination be redrawn after making corrections to answer to question nos. 4, 8
and 11. The petitioner’s representation however remained unaddressed. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner having correctly
answered question nos. 4, 8 and 11 in Group A i.e. MBBS/BDS under RUHS M.Sc. (Med.) examination, 2018 and answers thereto in the answer key
issued were wrong / incorrect is supported by the expert opinion of Dr. Gireesh Gupta, M.S. (Orthopedic, Spine Surgery), Ramanji Hospital &
Research Centre, Ex. Assistant Professor, SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur. It has been prayed that this petition therefore be allowed and
writ of mandamus for an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the respondents for re-evaluating the answers of question nos. 4, 8 and 11 in
the question paper for Group-A i.e. MBBS / BDS and the revised result on the basis of evaluation afresh on the basis of the correct answers to
question Nos. 4, 8 and 11 for Group-A at the M.Sc. (Med.) Exam, 2018 thereafter be declared for the purpose of admission into M.Sc. (Med.) with
RUHS in the academic year 2018-19.
Reply to the petition was filed. It was submitted that following the RUHS M.Sc. (Med.) Examination, 2018, on 19.8.2018, the answer keys to various
question papers including for category A students was published on the official website of the University the same evening. Candidates who wrote the
examination were required to submit their objections to the answer key, if any, on or before 20th August, 2018 â€" the following day. The petitioner
however did not submit any objection within time and in-fact her objections to the answer key were submitted on 24th August, 2018 only subsequent to
declaration of result. It has been submitted that the petitioner thus having missed filing of objections to the answer key on or before 20th August, 2018,
it cannot lie in her mouth to dispute the answers in the answer key to the Group A question paper and question her alleged wrongful evaluation of her
answer to question nos. 4,8 and 11.
Mr. Naman Maheshwari appearing for the petitioner submitted that only one day time as given for filing objections to the answer key to the candidates
was wholly insufficient. In-fact such a short time frame tantamounts in effect to no time given at all and renders the whole process non â€
transparent and arbitrary. The respondents giving such short notice of one day to file objections to the answer key for the question paper for Group A
candidate at the RUHS M.Sc. (Med.) Examination, 2018 was exfacie unreasonable and arbitrary as there is no disclosed urgency for the same.
As the reply of the writ petition as initially filed was limited to the technicalities of the petition not being maintainable for reason of the petitioner having
failed to file her objections to the answer key on or before 20th August, 2018 i.e. within one day of the examination as required, the Court vide its
direction on 19th September, 2018 required that an additional affidavit be filed by the respondents addressing the merits of the petitioner’s case
and also it be disclosed who the professors / experts were who prepared the concerned question paper and the answer key thereto.
Pursuant to the court’s direction dated 19th September, 2018, an additional affidavit of Setu Mathur, Co-convener for admissions into RUHS,
M.Sc. (Med.) Course (A.Y. 2018-19) has been filed. The said affidavit states that following the direction of the Court, opinion of the expert
examiner Dr. Royana Singh, MD (DNB, MNAMS) Ph.D., Professor Incharge Cytogenetics and TEM Facility, Department of Anatomy, Institute of
Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi who himself prepared the question paper for Group A as also the answer key to questions
therein was sought. She has informed the respondent-RUHS vide her E-mail dated 19th September, 2018 (which is annexed to the additional affidavit
as Annexure-R/1/1) that answers in the answer key to question nos. 4, 8 and 11 for Group-A i.e. MBBS /BDS candidates were incorrect and the
correct answers for those question nos. would be; ‘B’ for question no. 4, ‘B’ for question no. 8 and ‘C’ for question no. 11.Â
Mr. Naman Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the correct answers to question nos. 4, 8 and 11 as set out by the expert who
prepared the question paper for Group A are the very answers given by the petitioner to the aforesaid questions. It is thus evident that the answers in
the answer key to question no. 4, 8 and 11 were incorrect and evaluation of merit based thereon unsustainable and unjust. He submitted that the
petitioner despite having answered question Nos. 4, 8 and 11 with answers B, B and C â€" all correct, yet has been denied the marks therefor. In this
view of the matter Mr. Naman Maheshwari submitted that it would be grossly unfair to the petitioner if her answer sheet to the M.Sc. (Med.)
examination 2018 conducted by RUHS were not to be re-evaluated accordingly and her merit at the examination in issue in Group A be reassessed.
Mr. AK Singh appearing for the respondent-University in view of the affidavit of Setu Mathur supported by the opinion of paper setter herself to the
petitioner’s benefit, is also not in a position to deny the injustice caused to the petitioner by virtue of her answers to question nos. 4, 8 and 11 at the
examination in issue having been held to be incorrect for reasons of the incorrect answer key on which the petitioner and others were evaluated.
In the peculiar facts of the case, justice demands that this Court overlook the technicality of the petitioner not having filed her objections to the
answer key notified by the respondents for Group A question paper on their official website on 19th August, 2018 by 20th August, 2018. It is well
settled and beyond any cavil that merit should not be made a casualty in admissions to medical courses. Reference for this proposition, albeit
unnecessary, can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of  Manish Ujwal and others Versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati
University & Ors. (MANU/SC/0562/2005) as also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and
others Versus Samir Gupta & Ors. (MANU/SC/0062/1983).
The process for admission to M.Sc. (Med.) in the academic year 2018-19 at the RUHS is still in progress and not yet finalized. In this view of the
matter, I would direct the respondent- RUHS to re-evaluate all the answer sheets in Group-A i.e. MBBS/BDS at the RUHS M.Sc. (Med.)
Examination, 2018 as such re-evaluation would not disrupt the admission process â€" as admitted by Mr. AK Singh on instructions of the OIC present
in court.
Consequently the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-evaluate the answer sheets of all the candidates who wrote the M.Sc. (Med.)
Examination, 2018 in Group A i.e. MBBS/BDS. This re-evaluation be carried out within 7 days on the outside and the result be accordingly declared
afresh.
Consequences to follow. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Petition stands allowed accordingly.