AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—The Petitioner, after her post-graduation in medicine, was admitted to M. Ch programme in Plastic Surgery in the month of August 2008 in M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals, Bangalore. After fulfilling the requisite requirements of study, she appeared in M. Ch Final Examination in Plastic Surgery held in the month of July 2011 with the Hall Ticket issued to her bearing No. 8SL176. The results of the said examination were announced. The Petitioner was declared ''failed'' in the subjects bearing QP Code 9152 and 9153. The Petitioner having felt that her papers are not; valued in accordance with the Regulations, has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:
(A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the declaration of the result of the Petitioner in the M. Ch examination in so far as it relates to Papers 3 and 2 vide QP Code 9153 and QP Code 9152 respectively; as announced on 9th August 2011 produced as Annexure-C and,
(B) Issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to conduct fresh valuation in respect of Paper 3 vide QP Code 9153 of the answer script of the Petitioner by competent examiners in accordance with regulations of the University and MCI.
The Petitioner has made certain allegations in the writ petition. The relevant allegations read thus:
The Petitioner submits, as is learnt by her now, the Respondent University, considering it as convenient to have only ''one centre for conduct of examination'', noticing there to be only ''4 students'' appearing for the M. Ch Course''s final examination, had initially indicated M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, to be the examination centre; where other students appearing for examination, namely - of Bangalore Medical College and St. John''s Medical College were also to be examined, in the Practical, Viva and theoretical papers/examinations, but was ''resisted to'' by the HOD of Bangalore Medical College, seeking to make it. as some kind of "prestige issue'' and, seeking to insist on having a ''second centre'' under his convener-ship and, 2 separate sets of ''external examiners'' of his choice, not wanting to be guided/convened by H.O.D. of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital as proposed by the University initially, and openly expressing some kind of antipathy and disrespect fulness, despite he himself being a former student of Dr. Gurumurthy.
The Petitioner has serious and concrete reasons to believe that, she has become a victim of serious mis-givings between the HOD of Bangalore Medical College and HOD of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College being the Institution of the Petitioner, and the apparent misgivings, prejudice and rivalry have caused enormous harm and injustice to the Petitioner.
On perusal of the tabulation of the Petitioner''s marks in "paper 3" having Q.P. (code 9153), it is apparent that, instead of ''evaluators'' evaluating the answer script of this Petitioner as was their task, Dr. V. Shivarami Reddy, has evaluated ''twice over'' same paper (paper 3); awarding different marks of ''38'' and ''36. The pattern of award of marks also discloses, a very capricious evaluation, leading to a suspicion as to whether ''4 eminent examiners'' have honestly and independently evaluated the answer script, as is required under the Regulations/Ordinance. This Kind of erratic and casual evaluation or rather a malafide act of manipulation has caused enormous prejudice to the Petitioner marring her entire career, life and reputation. The copies of the ''valuation card'' in respect, of Paper 1, Paper 2, Paper 3 and Paper 4, bearing QP Code 9151, 9152, 9153 and 9154 respectively, a bare perusal of which discloses shocking casualness and capriciousness with which her answer scripts have been evaluated is produced herewith as Annexure D, D1, D2 and D3 respectively, for perusal of this Hon''ble Court.
By making the aforementioned averments, the Petitioner submits that she is made a scapegoat without any fault of her. According to her, though she has done well in the examinations, she was awarded less number of marks, deliberately.
Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned Counsel opposing the writ petition submits that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the University and that there is no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts.
It is relevant to note the procedure for valuing the papers in respect of the super speciality examinations. Regulation No. 11.2.4 of the Regulation and Curriculum for Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma in Medical Sciences reads thus:
11.2.4 Examiners: There shall be atleast four examiners in each subject. Out of them, two shall be external examiners and two shall be internal examiners. The qualification and teaching experience for appointment as an examiner shall be as laid down by the Medical Council of India.
From the above regulation, it is clear that the answer sheets in respect of each subjects will have to be valued by four independent examiners out of which two shall be External examiners and two shall be Internal Examiners.
In the light of averments made in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition (quoted supra), this Court instructed Mr. N.K. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. l - University to produce the original valuation slips pertaining to the Petitioner. The same are perused by the Court. It is found that one Dr. V. Shivarami Reddy has evaluated the same paper twice, awarding different marks, viz., 38 and 36. Thus, it is clear that Paper No. 3 is evaluated by three evaluators instead of four independent evaluators. The object with which the regulation is framed is frustrated on the said regulation not followed in letter and spirit. The answer script of a student studying in super speciality in Plastic Surgery should be evaluated by four independent examiners. The object behind the regulation is that the real assessment of worth of the student can be made if the same paper is evaluated by four independent examiners. By this, the proficiency of the student on the subject can be determined in a proper perspective. By the said process, no prejudice will be caused to anybody. The University by the said process, will evaluate the student properly so as to award the degree. Since the examination in question is pertaining to super speciality, the authorities of the University should have been more careful in sending the papers for correction. They should not have acted casually or carelessly. The Investigating Authorities cannot play with the lives of the students. The erratic and casual evaluation of the papers by the senior professors of the students of Super Speciality, will ruin the career of the candidates and consequently not only the concerned candidate but also the Society will be at loss. Therefore, the University should have proceeded in accordance with the aforementioned regulation, in letter and spirit, in order to fulfill the intention with which the regulation is framed.
The originals of the; valuation slips are perused by me. It is clear that one Professor by name V. Shivarami Reddy has valued the paper twice. He has put his signature on both the valuation slips, which proves the said fact. Thus it is clear that the allegation made in the Writ Petition against certain Professors, appear to be true. Hence this Court has viewed the matter seriously. Be that as it may, since the said paper is evaluated by the same Professor twice, the evaluation will have to be done once again in order to eradicate the illegality that has happened in the matter on hand. The Vice Chancellor also should see that such mistakes do not re-occur in future. The mistake committed by the University mentioned supra shocks the judicial conscience of this Court. Since this is an exceptional case wherein the University has mishandled the valuing system, this Court proposes to direct the University to revalue the papers though there is no provision contemplated under the Regulations for revaluation. My view is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahiti and Others Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others, (Para 32)). Under such circumstances, the following order is made:
The results in respect of Papers QP Code Nos. 9152 and 9153 in respect of the Petitioner announced on 9.8.2011 stand set-aside. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to conduct fresh valuation in respect of the aforementioned papers by four independent examiners and announce the result on the basis of the revaluation.
Petition stands disposed of.