In a writ petition, a final year M.B.B.S. student challenged his practical examination failure alleging malafides. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding allegations vague and noting strict rules on revaluation of practicals and ineligibility for grace marks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** 1 * W.P. 6849/2010**
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6849 OF 2010
Parveen Chandna V/S. Dean, Krishna Institute of Medical Science, Karad, Dist.Satara and Ors.
.......Petitioner
.........Respondents
Mr. C.K. Thomas i/by. M/s. C.K. Thomas and Associates, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
Coram: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, , JJ.
September 7, 2010.
P.C. :
course conducted by the first respondent at its college at Karad.
The petitioner passed the first and second M.B.B.S. examinations.
Thereafter, the petitioner also cleared the Part1 examination of the
Third year of the M.B.B.S. course. However, the petitioner has failed
in the Part2 examination of the Third year of the M.B.B.S. degree
W.P. 6849/2010
*** 2 ***
course. The petitioner has passed the theoretical examinations in
the subjects of Medicine and Surgery but has failed in the subjects of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Paediatrics. The petitioner has failed in the practical examinations in all the four subjects.
as follows :
“. The petitioner further states that there are various frivolous and false complaints are initiated by Kum. Kanchan Sanjay Dandavate against the petitioners and respondents are aware that the petitioner is an innocent person. It is merely victimization of character assassination suffered by the petitioner. Against which the petitioner has got a discharge from the aforesaid frivolous complaints and the petitioner has also initiated quashing proceedings as well as other proceedings before the concerned court at Karad, which is pending. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid false allegations, your concerned department cannot put the petitioner’s in difficulty in his academic performance in the aforesaid course. Petitioner further states that it appears to be malafide action, that on influences of some persons, respondent nos.1 and 2’s concerned Departments, purposely failed the petitioner in the aforesaid examination.”
W.P. 6849/2010
*** 3 ***
There is no reason to presuppose that the University has acted at the behest of the student mentioned in para8, by deliberately failing the petitioner. That apart, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has submitted before the court that in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, there were four examiners for each subject of which two were internal examiners and two were external examiners. Out of the two external examiners, one was from out of state. For the subject of Paediatrics, the court has been informed that there are two examiners one of whom was internal and one from out of State. There is a provision for revaluation under the Rules. The petitioner did not apply for revaluation within the period stipulated. That apart, the learned counsel for the first respondent has also drawn
the attention of the court to Rule 40 under which the results of the practical examination cannot be revalued. Moreover, under Rule 35 grace marks upto five are alloted to a student who has failed in only one subject, but, has passed in the other subjects. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any grace marks as well. In these circumstances, apart from the fact that the allegation of
W.P. 6849/2010
*** 4 ***
malafides has not been substantiated by making averments in the petition with a sufficient degree of particularity, we do not find any ground to interfere. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There
shall be no orders as to costs.
[Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J]
[Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the university's decision to fail the petitioner in practical examinations given lack of specific evidence of malafides.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to revaluation of practical examination results under the applicable university rules.
Parveen Chandna
Dean, Krishna Institute of Medical Science, Karad
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
