Allowed

Ms Harshitha C v. Rajiv Gandhi Unversity of

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2014WP/17195/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition challenging annulment of medical exam results due to malpractice allegations. Ordered University to permit petitioner to rewrite Anatomy and Physiology exams in usual course. Prevented petitioner from being treated as repeater based on earlier similar order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to rewrite Anatomy and Physiology exams in usual course without being treated as a repeater.

Ms Harshitha C Vs Rajiv Gandhi Unversity of — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

�

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17195 OF 2014 (EDN-RES)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ms.Harshitha C. D/o Channabasavaiah Age: 21 years No.533, 2^nd ‘A’ Cross 6^th Main, 3^rd Block 2^nd Stage, Basaveshwarnagar Bangalore – 560 079 … Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Adv. for Sri.Sandeep S.Patil, Adv.)

¶9

And:

¶10

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka No.4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar

¶11

Bangalore – 560 041

¶12

Rep. by its Registrar (Evaluation)

¶13

State of Karnataka

¶14

Dept. of Medical Sciences Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Amended v/o dt. 7.4.14) … Respondents

¶15

(Sri.Sandesh Chouta, Adv. for R1 Smt.Prathima Honnapura, HCGP for R2)

¶16

¶17

�

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.3.2014 passed by the respondent (Ann-A) and etc.

¶19

This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petition coming on for preliminary hearing is considered for final disposal.

¶22

Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli

¶23

for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the

¶24

learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

¶25

Having regard to the fact that under similar circumstances a writ petition in W.P.No.14493/2014 was allowed on certain terms by order dated 7.4.2014, the present petition is similarly placed as the petitioner in the above and therefore, the petition is disposed of on the same terms.

¶26

The facts are that the petitioner had taken Phase I M.B.B.S. examination in June 2012 and all the three subjects,

¶27

�

¶28

namely, Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry. She was able to clear Biochemistry only and she had appeared for the examination for Anatomy and Physiology during December 2012. The results were announced in March 2013 and she had failed in both the subjects. The petitioner had approached the respondents seeking re-totalling of the marks in respect of the two subjects and again she was shown as failed. Despite the announcement of results of re-totalling the petitioner continued to be shown as failed. Hence, having found that the same page was being displayed on the website and she being doubtful as to the results of the re-totalling been announced, she approached the University for clarification. The respondent was issued a consolidated extract of the examination ledger dated 8.6.2013 showing the result of the petitioner as having passed and having obtained a total marks of 638 out of 1000. She was therefore promoted to the 2^nd year M.B.B.S. course by the College. She is then been pursuing her 2^nd year M.B.B.S. course without hindrance. However, during December 2013, there was certain news reports as regards there being mal practices involving marks cards and it was suspected that

¶29

�

¶30

the petitioner was one of the recipients of one of the beneficiaries of mal practices and there was an enquiry conducted. On the basis of the report of the said enquiry, the petitioner’s results have been annulled on the footing that there is a criminal investigation insofar as the Officers of the University who are involved and it is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the entire process for which her results have been annulled.

¶31

Even though it is not evident that the petitioner was directly involved in any such alleged mal practice, the petitioner is only aware of the marks and the result which was inconsistently shown as having failed and thereafter, on her seeking clarification, having been declared as passed. Beyond this, the petitioner claims that she is nowhere involved in the alleged mal practice. It is in this very circumstance that in the earlier petition, in order to avoid any further controversy and since the criminal investigation and criminal proceedings in respect of mal practice was said to be pending, it was found that it would be just and fair to permit the candidate to re-write the examination to avoid any kind of

¶32

�

¶33

allegation against her and not as a repeater but in the usual course, as a special case. Similarly, in the present case also, though the learned counsel for the respondent – University would raise serious objection for any such concession to be granted to the petitioner, it would be in the fairness of things if the petitioner is permitted to take the said examinations, namely, Anatomy and Physiology I and II over again and the University shall permit the petitioner to take the examination in the usual course to be held in June 2014 along with the 2^nd year M.B.B.S. examination. It is reiterated that she

¶34

shall not be treated as a repeater but as having taken the examination in the usual course.

¶35

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶36

The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file her

¶37

memo of appearance within four weeks.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Ms Harshitha C v. Rajiv Gandhi Unversity of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Harshitha C v. Rajiv Gandhi Unversity of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss. Fayiza v v Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Miss. Pavithra P.R Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Miss. Priyanka Kumari (Reg No: 09D5068) Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Sri L Krishnappa Vs the Commissioner

Valerian Rodrigues Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anita Purnesh Vs State of Karnataka