AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioner has sought a direction to Respondents to consider her representations dated 15/11/2014 and 1/12/2014 with regard to conduct of her practical and viva voce examination by Respondents on 13/11/2014.
Petitioner was admitted to the Post Graduation Course in MS-OBG, in the third respondent - Institution, for the Academic Year 2011-12, after completion of her MBBS Degree from the same Institution.
The course is for three years but it was extended by another six months, as the petitioner had availed Maternity Leave for the aforesaid period. She had appeared for theory examination conducted by the first respondent - University from 27/10/2014 to 03/11/2014. Thereafter, she appeared for practical/clinical and viva voce examination, conducted by the third respondent -Institution. In fact, there were four students who had appeared for the practical/clinical and viva voce examinations in MS-OBG Course. The said examination took place on 13/11/2014 in the OBG Ward of the third respondent - Institution.
For conducting the practical/clinical and viva voce Examination, a panel of four examiners was constituted under the RGUHS Regulations for Post Graduate Degree Course in Medical Sciences 2000 [hereinafter, referred to as the "Regulations"] read with relevant Ordinance of the respondent - University, out of which two were Internal Examiners and the other two were External Examiners. Dr. Pramila Pandey and Dr. Geetha Shivamurthy, were the Internal Examiners while Dr. Aruna Ramaiah and Dr. Sumathi, were the External Examiners. Thus, the petitioner had to be assessed by a panel of four doctors who were the examiners.
Grievance of the petitioner is that on the day of the said examination, there were six Examiners instead of four, who evaluated her performance, which was in violation of the Regulations. Therefore, she has sought a direction to the respondents to enquire into the matter and to hold the practical/clinical and viva voce examinations afresh, in accordance with the Regulations as well as the Ordinance of the respondent - University.
I have heard learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - University as well as respondent No. 3 - Institution at length and on different dates.
During the course of submission, while pointing out the relevant Regulations and the manner in which the clinical/practical and viva voce examination has to be conducted for the Post Graduation students of MS-OBG Course, learned senior counsel also drew my attention to the Report submitted by the Internal Examiner of third respondent - University to the second respondent -Registrar (Evaluation) by contending that Para 6 of that Report would clearly indicate that the clinical/practical and viva voce Examination of the petitioner was not held in accordance with the Regulations. He therefore contended that respondent - University may be directed to hold a fresh practical and viva voce Examination for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent - University as well as respondent - Institution however resisted and objected to the contentions raised by the petitioner''s counsel. They contended that practical/clinical and viva voce examinations of the petitioner was conducted in accordance with the Regulations and Ordinance of the University and that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
The Scheme of Examination for MS-OBG consists of (a) four theory papers (400 marks); (b) clinical Examination (200 marks), consisting of (i) Obstetrics part and (ii) Gynaecology part; and (c) viva voce (100 marks). Thus, the total marks for the examination is 700.
The Regulations pertaining to the Scheme of Examination is Regulation No. 14 and the relevant portion reads as under:--
"14. EXAMINATIONS
The examinations shall be organized on the basis of grading or marking system to evaluate and certify candidate''s level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in theory as well as practical separately shall be mandatory for passing the whole examination. The examination for M.S., M.D., D.M., M.Ch. shall be held at the end of 3 academic years (six academic terms) and for diploma at the end of 2 academic years (four academic terms). The academic term shall mean six months training period.
(1) Examiners
(a) All the Postgraduate Examiners shall be recognised Postgraduate Teachers holding recognised postgraduate qualifications in the subject concerned.
(b) For all postgraduate Examinations, the minimum number of Examiners shall be four, out of which at least two (50%) shall be External Examiners, who shall be invited from other recognised Universities from outside the State. Two sets of internal examiners may be appointed one for M.D./M.S. and one for diploma.
(c) Under exceptional circumstances, examinations may be held with 3 (Three) examiners provided two of them are external and Medical Council of India is intimated the justification of such action prior to publication of result for approval. Under no circumstances, result shall be published in such cases without the approval of Medical Council of India.
(d) In the event of there being more than one Centre in one City, the external examiners at all the centres in that city shall be the same. Where there is more than one Centre of Examination, the University shall appoint a Supervisor to co-ordinate the examination on its behalf.
(e) The examining authorities may follow the guidelines regarding appointment of examiners given in Appendix-II.
(2) Number of candidates
The maximum number of candidates to be examined in Clinical/practical and Oral on any day shall not exceed eight for M.D./M.S. degree, eight for diploma and three for D.M.M. Ch. examinations.
(3) Number of Examinations
The University shall conduct not more than two examinations in a year, for any subject, with an interval of not less than 4 and not more than 6 months between the two examinations.
(4) I. Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)/Master of Surgery (M.S.)
M.D./M.S. examinations, in any subject shall consist of Thesis, Theory Papers, and Clinical/Practical and oral examinations.
(a) Thesis
Every candidate shall carry out work on an assigned research project under the guidance of a recognised postgraduate Teacher, the results on which shall be written up and submitted in the form of a Thesis.
Work for writing the Thesis is aimed at contributing to the development of a spirit of enquiry, besides exposing the candidate to the techniques of research, critical analysis, acquaintance with the latest advances in medical sciences and the manner of identifying and consulting available literature. Thesis shall be submitted at least six months before the Theoretical and Clinical/Practical Examination.
The thesis shall be examined by a minimum of three examiners; one internal and two external examiners, who shall not be the examiners for Theory and Clinical; and on the acceptance of the thesis by two examiners, the candidate shall appear for the final examination.
(b) Theory
(i) There shall be four theory papers.
(ii) Out of these one shall be of Basic Medical Sciences and one shall be of recent advances.
(iii) The theory examinations shall earlier that the Clinical and Practical examination, so that the answer books can be assessed and evaluated before the start of the Clinical/Practical and Oral examinations:
Provided that after five years from the commencement of these regulations, there shall be one theory paper of "multiple choice questions"; unless any institution wants to have such paper earlier.
(c) Clinical/Practical and Oral
(i) Clinical examination for the subjects in Clinical sciences shall be conducted to test the knowledge and competence of the candidates for undertaking independent work as a specialist/Teacher, for which candidate shall examine a minimum one long case and two short cases.
(ii) Practical examination for the subjects in Basic Medical Sciences shall be conducted to test the knowledge and competence of the candidate for making valid and relevant observations based on the experimental/Laboratory studies and his ability to perform such studies as are relevant to his subject.
(iii) The oral examination shall be thorough and shall aim at assessing the candidate''s knowledge and competence about the subject, investigative procedures, therapeutic technique and other aspects of the speciality which form a part of the examination.
A candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing which shall include (1) Theory, (2) Practical including clinical and viva voce examinations."
XXX
Regulations and curricula for post graduate Degree and Diploma courses in medical sciences, 2000 are produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition.
Respondent - Institution was designated as a center for holding the impugned clinical/practical and viva voce Examination of the petitioner. There were four students to be examined on 13/11/2014. There had to be two Internal Examiners and two External Examiners, to assess each of the students. Respondent No. 3 -Institution therefore had four students from the following colleges to be examined:--
"1. KIMS
M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Health Science
Vaidehi Medical College and Health Science
Bangalore Medical College and Health Science"
Each of the candidates had to be examined by two Internal Examiners and two External Examiners, who would form a panel of examiners. The names of External Examiners and Internal Examiners for the petitioner are as follows:
For the petitioner-accordingly there were to be ''2 external examiners'' and ''2 internal examiners'' -University nominating/appointing-Prof. Dr. Sumathi and Prof. Dr. Aruna [from outside the state] to be external examiners and; Prof. Dr. Pramila Pandey [of Vaidehi MC] and Prof. Dr. Geeta Shivamurthy [of MBC] to be internal examiners.
Likewise, for each of the Examinee/student -there were Prof. Dr. Sumathi and Prof. Dr. Aruna [from outside the state] as ''external examiners'' and; ''2 other professors in combination'' as internal examiners; one among them being a professor of the candidate''s own college, in terms of the requirement.
However, it is the contention of the petitioner that Dr. Sudha and Dr. Asha Swaroop, who were the Internal Examiners for KIMS and M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and who were in no way concerned with the examination of the petitioner, had also participated in the practical, viva voce and clinical Examination of the petitioner. The specific contentions of the petitioner in this regard are extracted as under:
"� Unfortunately; in gross violation of the sanctity of conduct of clinical and viva examinations; in place of ''4 Examiners'': all the ''Six Examiners'' had participated in conduct of the Clinical and Viva Voce Examination; putting questions in the manner as narrated by the Petitioner in her representation; thus ''vitiating'' the entire conduct of examination.
� It is to be noticed that; a professor representing each of the college of the examinee is bound to be interested in the candidate from their college; carrying an operative prejudice-conscious or un-conscious, against other candidates; which many a times gives scope for ''error'' in assessing a candidate''s performance from such other colleges; which apparently has happened in the instant case.
� Participation of Prof. Dr. Sudha and Prof. Dr. Asha Swaroop [who were to be ''internal examiners'' for Examinees/students from KIMS and MS Ramaiah College respectively] and who had nothing to do with the petitioner''s examination; has vitiated the examination conducted [respecting clinical and viva voce]; greatly prejudicing the cause of the petitioner herein."
There is no doubt that a panel of four Examiners had to take clinical/practical and viva voce Examination of the petitioner and not six. However the question is as to whether the practical and viva voce examination, if the petitioner was vitiated on account the aforesaid contentions.
In response to the notice issued by this Court, first and second respondent - University have filed its statement of objections as well as a Report of Dr. Pramila Pandey, Head of the Department of OBG of the 3rd respondent - college, who was the co-ordinator of the practical/clinical and viva-voce examination, which is produced as Annexure "R-1" to the statement of objections and the same is perused.
As per the Report, dated 24/11/2014, submitted by the respondent - Institution to the University, it was only four Doctors namely, two Internal Examiners and two External Examiners, who had to conduct the impugned examination. In the Report, which is marked as Annexure "R-1", to the statement of objections filed by the respondent university, at Para 6, it is stated as under:--
"6. The Internals of the other colleges were sitting in the same examination hall observing the clinical examination of their candidates and they were not involved in the practical and viva-voce examination of the VIMS & RC candidate Reg. No. 11M0379 Dr. Vyshnavi Rao."
Response of the petitioner to the aforesaid extract is as under:
"� As stated in the ''report'' as per the stand of the University; there were ''6 examiners'' seated in the examination Hall/room at the time of petitioner''s viva voce/Practicals. Their presence around the table/examination station; facing the examinee itself is sufficient irregularity, a breach of its sanctity; which the University cannot seek to ignore, in a matter of ''conduct of examination'' of such high standards.
� In respect of the petitioner''s examination clinical examination for all the 4 examinees/students in Obstetrics were conducted between 11 AM to 02 PM. Each of the student was called; one after the other to the ''examination station'' wherein ''6 examiners'' were seated round the table/station.
� It is to be noted that, part of clinical examination in Gynaecology was conducted ''post lunch'' and; by the time petitioner''s turn for ''Gynaecology subject part'' came about, students of MSR MC and KIMS had already finished their Gynaecology - clinical examination. Despite the same, not only were ''six examiners'' present, but all of them examined the petitioner by asking her questions in the manner mentioned in the complaint and in the petition. The petitioner felt that she was being targeted with a volley of questions, being asked in a hostile manner. In her representation to the University; the petitioner has listed the specific questions asked, by each examiner during the practical examination.
� It is submitted that; after the completion of clinical-Obstetrics part and Gynaecology part; around 4.30 PM, the viva voce examination was taken up. For viva voce examination; which started around 4.30 PM; there was only one station/table with all the 6 examiners ''seated'' round the table and; all the 4 students/examinees also seated facing the examiners. All the four students were examined at that time, one after the other, by all the 6 examiners; on completion of which, it appears, they continued valuing the answer scripts of theory papers. Even during the viva-voce; the petitioner felt that the questions were being asked in a hostile manner.
� The report does not inspire much of ''reliability'' and ''confidence''; for it has in order to cover up the irregularity; has made wholly incorrect statement in stating that; while ''only 4 examiners'' were assessing the performance of the petitioner''s Practical and Viva Voce examination; the other internal examiners for other candidates [namely Dr. Asha Swaroop from MSR Medical College and Dr. Sudha of KIMS] were observing the clinical examinations of their candidates.
� On 13.11.2014; on the day of practical/viva voce examination; there were 4 students/examinees; one each from MS Ramaiah Medical College, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences; Vydehi Medical College and Hospital; and Bangalore Medical College; to be examined; at the 3rd Respondent college''s centre. Clinical examination had started at around 11 AM, and there was a break for lunch at 2.30 PM. Examinations were conducted in the order of students from MS Ramaiah Medical College, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences; Vydehi Medical College; and Bangalore Medical College respectively [MSR MC, KIMS, Vydehi MC and BMC]; and Part of clinical [re Gynaecology] and; viva voce were continued after the lunch break. Petitioner''s clinical in ''Gynaecology part'' and viva voce were conducted post lunch. Students from KIMS, and MSR MC had already completed their ''clinical examination in Obstetrics'' before the lunch break and; had completed their clinical - Gynaecology part before this petitioner''s turn; and therefore it is inconceivable that Internal Examiners of said Colleges would be observing ''Clinical Examinations'' of other/their colleges'' candidates, when petitioner was examined for her clinical examination."
On a reading of the aforesaid Report, firstly, from the aforesaid para 6, what becomes apparent is the fact that the practical, viva voce and clinical examination were not being conducted exclusively for each student but were being conducted simultaneously for all the four students, which is an incorrect procedure. Secondly, Internal Examiners of the other colleges could not have conducted the clinical examination of other candidates at the same time when the practical/clinical and viva-voce examinations of the petitioner was being conducted. This is because, the Internal Examiners could not have conducted the examination of other candidates in the absence of the two External Examiners, who were conducting practical/clinical and viva-voce examination of the petitioner, because the External Examiners were common to all the four candidates. Therefore, the very conduct of the practical/clinical and viva voce examinations, is wholly incorrect and contrary to the elementary rules of conducting practical/clinical and viva voce examinations. The admission of third respondent - college that the Internal Examiners of the other colleges were present when petitioner''s examination was being conducted, is sufficient to come to a conclusion that petitioner has made out a genuine grievance in what the petitioner has contended, which is to the effect that there were six Examiners, who were conducting the examination.
However, the dispute in the instant case is in a narrow compass. This Court is not concerned with the manner in which the entire practical/clinical and viva voce examinations of all the candidates conducted by the Respondents on 13/11/2014. Having regard to what has been stated in Para 6 of the Report of the 3rd respondent Institution, the inference that can be drawn is that the clinical/practical and viva voce Examination of petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the Regulations and Ordinance. The Report though does not categorically state that the Internal Examiners of the other colleges participated in the practical/clinical and viva-voce examinations of the petitioner nevertheless it candidly states that the Internal Examiners of the other colleges were present when the petitioner was being examined. That was not the manner in which Examination of petitioner had to be conducted. Therefore, in the circumstances, the practical/clinical and viva-voce examination of the petitioner is set aside.
The respondent - University is directed to conduct the practical/clinical and viva-voce examinations of the petitioner afresh. For that purpose, University is directed to reconstitute the panel of Internal Examiners and External Examiners, who shall be four in number. It is needless to observe that the panel of Examiners would not be the very same Examiners, who had conducted the impugned examination of the petitioner. The aforesaid examination shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after due intimation to the petitioner, by giving the petitioner notice of atleast one week, as regards the date of proposed Examination.
After conducting the practical/clinical and viva-voce examinations, respondent - University shall declare the results of the petitioner.
It is made clear that the aforesaid directions have been issued to the respondent - University itself based solely on the analysis of the Report of the third respondent - Institution. This order shall not be treated as a precedent to be applicable in general for other cases.
Learned counsel for the respondent -University acknowledges receipt of sealed cover containing results of the petitioner in the examination.
The writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.