AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Slide/,Specimen/,Chart/,X-ray Scan/,"Instrument (Each 5
Marks)
(5),(5),(5),(5),(5)
,25,Oral,75,
,,,Total,100
The Dean of the Stanley Medical College has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the Examiners will be appointed only by the Tamil Nadu,,,,
Dr. M.G.R. Medical University from among the Associate Professors/Professors, who are working in the Government Medical College. The role",,,,
of Convener is only to conduct the examination, (i.e.) practical examination with Examiners and after completing the examinations, they will sent the",,,,
marks/report by themselves in a sealed cover to the Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University in person. No single entry/particular is available in,,,,
the Office of the Dean regarding the marks which the first respondent had secured. Therefore, the College is not in a position to produce such",,,,
unavailable records before this Court.,,,,
The learned single Judge after considering the rival submissions allowed the Writ Petition, with a direction to the University to permit the first",,,,
respondent to appear for the practical examination for those sub-heads of practicals, namely, Slide/Specimen/Chart/X-ray Scan/Instrument and",,,,
whatever the marks she secures in the practical examination to be held shall be added to the marks which she had already secured in March 1998,,,,
examination and the University shall declare the result of the first respondent.,,,,
The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the order of the learned single Judge giving direction to conduct re-examination for,,,,
assessing the practicals alone, under sub-heads, namely, Slide/Specimen/Chart/X-ray Scan/Instrument, for which, 5 marks each awarded is wrong",,,,
as it is the consistent stand of the University that 42 marks awarded to the first respondent in March 1998 includes the marks awarded to the,,,,
above said heads also. Hence, if separate examination for practicals is to be ordered, the first respondent has to appear for the whole practical",,,,
examination for Part-II including Oral. The learned counsel further submitted that the examination pattern having been modified from 1993-94 in,,,,
respect of award of marks, examiners were justified in awarding lump sum marks together for 100 instead of awarding separate marks for 25 and",,,,
75 in different heads.,,,,
The learned counsel for the University on the other hand submitted that the examination pattern modified upto the year 1998, (a copy of which",,,,
was also filed in the typed set of papers), namely, Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Chennai (Modified upto 30th",,,,
September 1999) clearly states that 25 marks are to be awarded under the sub-heads of Practicals, namely, Slide/Specimen/Chart/X-ray",,,,
Scan/Instrument and 75 marks are to be awarded in Oral and total marks in practicals i.e. 25 + 75 should be 100. The learned counsel further,,,,
submitted that the first respondent is willing to appear for the practical examination in Part-II. He also submitted that if the first respondent is able,,,,
to secure four marks i.e. 46 in practicals, she should be declared as pass in M.D. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology).",,,,
The learned counsel for the University relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti,,,,
Raj and Others, , wherein it is held that awarding of lump sum mark to each candidate without awarding marks in separate head was illegal and the",,,,
said ratio laid down in the said judgment can be equally applied to the facts of this case. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment,,,,
rendered by one of us (NPVJ) in the decision reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 995 [R. Geetha vs. DR. M.G.R. Medical University], wherein this Court",,,,
ordered to conduct re-examination to the petitioner therein by appointing qualified Internal Examiners, in respect of practical and viva-voce alone",,,,
as per Medical Council of India Regulation and the said order was implemented by the appellant University.,,,,
We have considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsels.,,,,
The point in issue as to whether the order of the learned single Judge in ordering practical re-examination to the first respondent is justified or,,,,
not.,,,,
In the order of the University dated 16.02.2007 it is stated that the University followed the practice of awarding lump sum marks in practicals,,,,
including oral. The Regulation framed by the University (Modified upto 30th September 1999) clearly states that 5 marks each has to be awarded,,,,
under the sub-heads of Practicals, namely, Slide/Specimen/Chart/X-ray Scan/Instrument, that means 25 marks are to be awarded under 5 sub-",,,,
heads and the marks for Oral is 75, making total marks as 100. The said procedure as per the Examination Regulation has not been admittedly",,,,
followed in the matter of the first respondent, who is before this Court. Awarding separate marks to each head as stated above i.e. 5 x 5 total 25",,,,
and the marks awarded to practicals is 42, which is a lump sum out of 100 marks. The learned single Judge is justified in finding fault with the",,,,
award of marks as it is violation of the University Examination Regulation (Modified upto 30th September 1999).,,,,
The award of itemwise marks is mandatory or not was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1997 SCC,,,,
(L&S) 1029 [Raj Kumar &Amp; Others v. Shakti Raj & Others]. In the said judgment, it is held that the maximum marks prescribed for",,,,
academic qualification-25%; written examination-25%, Sports-5%, experience-10%; extra-curricular activities-5% and viva voce-30%.",,,,
However, instead of awarding marks itemwise, the Selection Committee awarding marks to each candidate in a lump sum is not justified. The said",,,,
separate head are given to avoid arbitrary awarding of marks to the candidates by Examiners.,,,,
The conducting of University examination and valuation strictly in accordance with the examination regulations by examiners is emphasized by,,,,
the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Another Vs. D. Suvankar and",,,,
Another, . In Paragraphs 6 and 8, it is held thus:",,,,
Award of marks by an examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that revaluation is not permissible under the Statute, the Examiner has to",,,,
be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An",,,,
examination is a stepping-stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for revaluation cannot be a shield for the Examiner to,,,,
arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which revaluation is impermissible.,,,,
It has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the valuation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration,,,,
in such cases is the ability of the Examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as Examiners who have the capacity, capability to",,,,
make valuation and they should really equipped for the job. Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated.",,,,
Nothing should be left to show even an apprehension about lack of fair assessment...,,,,
Applying the above cited judgment to the facts of this case, we are in agreement of the order passed by the learned single Judge in so far as",,,,
conducting fresh practical examination alone is upheld. With regard to the stand of the University that 42 marks are awarded out of 100 (25 + 75,,,,
= 100), we are unable to approve the reasoning given by the learned single Judge to conduct practical examination only for 75 marks (sub-heads)",,,,
without oral (25 marks). Hence the order of the learned single Judge is modified, with a direction to the appellant University to conduct the",,,,
practical Part-II M.D. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) to the first respondent bearing Registration No. 512, as stipulated in the then existed",,,,
Examination Regulations of the appellant University by awarding appropriate marks under each sub-heads of Practicals, namely, Slide 5/Specimen",,,,
5/Chart 5/X-ray Scan 5/Instrument 5, total 25 and orals 75. If the first respondent is getting 46 or above marks, the appellant University is",,,,
directed to declare that the first respondent has passed in M.D. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) degree in June 1998. The University is further,,,,
directed to conduct the said practical examination as directed above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.",,,,
The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.,,,,