Dr. Rahul S. Patil vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and State of Karnataka, Dept. Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education Dr. Nachiket Mahindrakar Vs The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and The State of Karnataka

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In these three writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - University to reconsider the entire evaluation challenge to the key answers with reference to the prescribed text and other references made by the petitioners under their application for challenge to the keys, after setting aside the corrected key answers as notified in terms of Annexure F and for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent - University to redo the consideration of the challenge to the Keys and for such other reliefs.

The petitioners have appeared for post graduate entrance test (PGET) for the year 2010 in medical disciplines. Petitioners wrote the written test on 07.02.2010. The key answers provided by the paper setter was notified to the petitioners. The petitioners noticed that the key answers provided by the paper setter were wrong and therefore they made a challenge evaluation to 18 questions. On the basis of challenge evaluation made by the petitioners, the respondent University announced the results of challenged evaluation on 19.02.2010. The petitioners being aggrieved by the results announced by the respondent University in the matter of challenge evaluation are be lore this Court.

During the pendency of these writ petitions the respondent University filed additional statement of objections on 11.03.2010 and paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 are relevant for the purpose of these cases and they read as under:

In these three writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the correctness of total number of 18 questions, out of them with regard to 5 questions will be question number 6, 90, 107, 133 and 144 of zero version, after challenge the experts found that the framing of the question itself was wrong and hence recommended for awarding of marks to all the lour answers wherever the candidates have attempted. Since the same benefit has not been extended to the students who have not attempted to answer the said questions, the PGET committee in its meeting held on 10.03.2010 resolved to delete the above five questions from out of the 200 questions given in the PGET and has resolved to restrict, the total number of marks to 195 instead of 200 and assign ranking accordingly.

As regards remaining 13 questions the Committee has resolved to refer the same to respective subject experts in the respective disciplines to review and give their decision after considering the question, answer and reference furnished by paper setter and the answer and reference furnished by the petitioners. The names of the subject experts will be furnished to this Hon''ble Court in a sealed cover. This respondent prays this Hon''ble Court that the answers given by the subject expert after review may be considered as the final answers as the counseling process should complete within the time schedule besides the counseling for All India quota has already begin and large number of students will be affected if there is any further delay in announcing the ranking.

This Court after hearing both the parties passed an order on 12.03.2010 directing the respondent University to refer 18 questions to the Committee consisting of three experts in each discipline and the relevant paragraphs are 6 and 7 and they read as under:

In the circumstances, I direct the University to refer the aforesaid 18 questions to the committee consisting of three experts in each discipline, the key answers furnished by the paper setter and the answers furnished in the challenge valuation. In so far as the aforesaid 5 questions are concerned, the experts have to take a decision as to whether the questions framed are correct and capable of being answered. If the experts come to a conclusion that the questions framed are correct, then to suggest the correct key answer/most probable answer for the said questions. In so far as other 13 questions are concerned, the committee in each disciplines has to suggest the correct key answer or the most probable answer.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners have furnished the materials, which may assist the experts to re-examine the key answers. The University is directed to send the said materials to the subject experts for their consideration. The names of the experts should be kept confidential by the University. The University is directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 10 days and submit the report to this Court in a sealed cover.

Now in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 12.03.2010 the respondent University secured a report from the Committee of Experts. It is stated that the report now submitted by the Committee of Experts specifies that the key answers provided for certain questions as correct, to certain questions as wrong and there is difference of opinion in respect of certain questions, further the report also specifies that certain questions are wrongly framed. In view of this development the PGET Committee is required to consider this report of Committee of Experts and to announce the list of key answers, on that basis to reevaluate the answer scripts and to announce the merit list.

During the course of arguments learned Advocates on both the side submitted that PGET Committee while considering the report of the Committee of Experts is required to take into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court in the following decisions.

i. State of Orissa v. Prajnaparamita Samanta, (1996) 7 SCC 106 President, Board of Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar 2006 JT 10

ii. Manish Ujwal and Others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others,

iii. Gurunanak Dev University v. S. Garg 2005 (13) SCC 749

iv. Dr. Karthik Jayachandran Vs. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others, .

In these decisions this Court and the Apex Court considered certain factors to he taken into consideration in a situation like this hope that the PGET committee will he guided by the law deviated in the decisions referred to supra while considering the report of the Committee of Experts.

For the reasons stated above, the following:

ORDER

i. Writ petitions are hereby disposed.

ii. The PGET Committee of the respondent University is directed to consider the report of the Committee of Experts submitted pursuant to the order or this Court dated 12.03.2010.

iii. The PGET Committee on consideration of the report of the Committee of Experts shall publish the list of key answers, evaluate the answer papers and announce the merit list in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to supra.

iv. Registry is hereby directed to give operative portion of this order to Sri. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the respondent - University.