AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Point A(5) of Chapter VII of the Examination
Manual of the 1st respondent as contrary to law in so far as it restricts the benefit of a third valuation to cases where the difference
between the marks awarded in two different valuations is more than 15%.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh valuation of
the petitioner's Anatomy Paper II in the First Professional MBBS Degree Supplementary Examinations (2018 Admission) and to calculate the
marks obtained by the petitioner by taking the average of the best two sets of marks and to publish the petitioner's results within a time
period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court so as to enable the petitioner to continue the MBBS course as a part of the 2018 Additional Batch
of the 7th respondent institution.
(iii) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct a
fresh valuation of the petitioner's answer to Question No.1 of Anatomy Paper II in the First Professional MBBS Degree Supplementary
Examinations (2018 Admission) and to calculate the marks obtained by the petitioner by taking the average of the best two sets of marks
and to publish the petitioner's results within a time period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court so as to enable the petitioner to continue the
MBBS course as a part of the 2018 Additional Batch of the 7th respondent institution.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Adjudication of Students' Grievances had found that there was an
irregularity in the conduct of the valuation of the Anatomy Paper II of the petitioner in the First Professional MBBS Degree course. However, the
Board had only directed a “relook†by the same evaluator.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P16 representation has, therefore, been preferred by the petitioner before the Pro-
Vice Chancellor, who is the Chairman of the Board of Adjudication seeking a reconsideration of the issue and a direction for a full revaluation of the
answer script.
In view of the fact that there is extreme urgency in the situation, since the student will be disabled from continuing his studies in the Second
Professional MBBS Degree course, I am of the opinion that the issue is liable to be considered at the earliest by the additional 8th respondent. There
will, accordingly, be a direction to the additional 8th respondent to immediately take up Ext.P16 representation preferred by the petitioner and to pass
orders thereon at the earliest, at any rate, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.