In a writ petition challenging non-assignment of marks in a specific question under the double evaluation policy during a BAMS course, the Bombay High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to assist the petitioner in clearing a subject.
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.
904-ASWP11950-15.DOC
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11950 OF 2015
Abhishek Vinod Pote
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Ms. Pooja V. Thorat, i/b. Mr. M.V. Thorat, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:13th January 2016
PC:-
1.After having heard Ms. Thorat appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and perusing the Petition with her assistance, we are
disinclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction so as to assist the
Petitioner to clear one subject. The Petitioner in the factual
averments has accepted the fact that having joined the Ayurvedic
College at Satara in the year 2010 for pursuing the BAMS degree
course, in 2010-2011 he appeared for six subjects in the first year
out of which four subjects were divided into Part-1 and Part-2,
whereas rest of the two subjects had only Part-1.
2.The Petitioner has passed his first year examination in
February 2013 and thereafter took admission in the second year of
1 of 3
904-ASWP11950-15.DOC
the said course in May 2013. It is common ground that the second
year students have to undergo one and half year of study and then
appear for an annual examination. In that year also, there are six
subjects and for going to the third year one is required to pass in
minimum four subjects and the rest of the two subjects can be
carried forward (adhering to Allow to Keep Terms - ATKT system).
That is how the candidate can be admitted in the third year of the
course. The same pattern with regard to the subject parts is
followed and the Petitioner appeared for a subject Dravyaguna
which was divided into two parts. The first paper carries 90 marks
and the second paper also carries the same marks. The student is
required to obtain minimum 50% aggregate marks to pass the
subject.
3.As stated in paragraph 4 of the Petition, the Petitioner noted
on a declaration of the result and a perusal of the examination paper
that he secured 42 and 38 marks in Part-1 which were allotted by
two different examiners. The 42 being the highest, in view of the
Policy/Ordinance, were considered. In Part-2 of the subject, one
examiner gave the Petitioner 46.5 and other examiner gave 47.
4.According to the Petitioner, the examiner who gave 46.5
marks has erroneously not given two marks to Question 1F, whereas
the other examiner has given two marks for the said question. The
Petitioner after verification of the entire answer book arrived at a
conclusion that the examiner who gave zero marks for Question 1F
ought to have assigned him two marks. The mark-sheet is referred
to.
2 of 3
904-ASWP11950-15.DOC
5.We do not see how in such circumstances, the Petitioner's
Advocate relies upon the Policy as contained in the Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences Procedure of double evaluation
(Evaluation and Re-Evaluation) system of assessment of theory
answer books pertaining to all under graduate and post graduate
courses.
6.Upon perusal of the relevant rule, and particularly Rule 4
setting out the procedure for assessment, we are unable to agree
with the Advocate that the said direction/Rule 4(x) would enable
the Petitioner to obtain marks more than the one assigned to
Question 1F. The rule cannot be read in this fashion for it speaks of
marks in the subject/paper. It does not speak of any specific
question/s.
7.In these circumstances and when total marks have to be
obtained for the bare minimum required to Keep Terms and to
enter the third year, then, the Petitioner having miserably failed to
obtain the same cannot be assisted in our writ jurisdiction. In policy
matters and that too framed by Academic Bodies, this Court should
be slow to interfere with the decision of the concerned experts.
Bearing that principle in mind, we proceed to dismiss this Writ
Petition.
8. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the Academic Body's decision limiting marks to those obtained in double evaluation.
Abhishek Vinod Pote
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court