Dismissed

Nini S v. National Medical Council

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021WP/4975/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an MBBS student, challenged the rejection of her Phase III exam via writ petition seeking grace marks. The Court held that rounding rules applied only to evaluator averages, not total subject aggregates, and grace marks were barred as she failed two subjects under the applicable regulations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; petitioner declared as failed in Phase III Part II MBBS examination.

Nini S Vs National Medical Council — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4975 OF 2021(EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

NINI S D/O S SUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT 48/A, NEAR SAGAR HOSPITAL TILAK NAGAR MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR T BLOCK BANGALORE 560041

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 110077 REPBY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

2 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU KARANTAKA 560041 REP BY REGISTRAR EVALUATION

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI N KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS PASS IN THE PHASE III PART I MBBS EXAMINATION, BY AWARDING 3 GRACE MARKS TO THE COMMUNITY MEDICINE PAPER AND ONE MARK TO ENT PAPER AS PER THE CLAUSE X(10) OF THE MCI REGULATION AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶21

The petitioner is pursuing her studies in M.B.B.S. course. She has written the Phase-III - Part-II M.B.B.S. examinations. Out of three subjects she has failed in two subjects. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to erratic evaluation there is huge difference between the marks awarded by the four evaluators. Nevertheless, as directed by this Court in W.P.Nos.231/2021 and connected matters, which were disposed of on 11.02.2021, to hold fifth evaluation in all such cases where the students had failed and the difference in total marks between the two evaluators was more than 15%, accordingly, two papers of the petitioner were sent for fifth evaluation i.e., Community Medicine and ENT. Unfortunately, the petitioner has failed in two subjects by 3 marks in Community Medicine and in 1 (one) mark in ENT.

¶22

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2019, issued by the respondent-University governing the valuation of answer scripts, more particularly Clause V(1)(b), while taking the average of the best four total marks out of five evaluators, marks are required to be rounded off to the nearest value. But, attention of this Court is drawn to the statement of marks announced by the respondent-University, at Annexure-C, which provides that the minimum marks to pass shall be as follows: 35% in Internal Assessment, 50% in Theory + viva, 50% in Practical and 50% in subject aggregate. In Community Medicine-I, the petitioner was awarded totally 130.5 marks by the four evaluators, the same is rounded off to 131 marks and the average works out to 33 marks. Accordingly, 33 marks are awarded. However, in the case of Community Medicine-II, while total marks awarded by the four evaluators was 196.5 and the same was rounded off to 197 and thereafter divided by 4, the petitioner obtains 49.25%, but what has been awarded is 49 marks.

¶24

However, the learned Counsel Sri. N K Ramesh, appearing for the respondent-University submits that if 49.25%

¶25

¶26

marks is rounded off to 50, even then the petitioner falls short of 2 marks in getting the subject aggregate of 50%. It is pointed out that the petitioner has scored 33 out of 100 marks in Theory paper-I; 49 in Theory paper-II (if rounded of - 50); 35 in Theory + viva out of 40 marks and therefore, the petitioner has scored 117 as per the Marks sheet out of total 240 marks. Therefore, it is submitted that even if 1 (one) mark is added, the petitioner would score 118, which would be 2 marks short of the minimum 50%.

¶27

In the considered opinion of this Court, provision is made for rounding off the marks while computing the marks awarded by the valuators. Provision is made as seen in Clause V(1)(b) to round off the marks while averaging the best four total marks for the paper awarded by the five evaluators and it is rounded off to the nearest value wherever it is permissible. Accordingly, benefit is given to the petitioner.

¶28

The next limb of argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is provision under the Regulations for awarding grace marks upto maximum 5 marks, but in terms of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, maximum of 5 grace marks can be

¶29

¶30

awarded if a student has failed only in one subject. Therefore, endeavor is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to convince this Court that if the marks are rounded off in one subject, the petitioner will succeed in that paper and 3 (three) grace mark could be given in terms of the MCI Regulations.

¶31

When the provisions of the Regulations are clear and there being no ambiguity there is no scope for rounding off the marks while averaging the marks from 240 to 100%. Scope is there for rounding off only while averaging the marks awarded by the evaluators. As regards the awarding of grace marks, it is clear that in terms of the Regulations applicable to the petitioner, who was admitted to the course during the academic year 2014-15, grace marks can be awarded only if the students had failed in one subject. Here is the case, where the petitioner has failed in two subjects there is no scope for awarding the grace marks.

¶32

Attention of this Court was drawn to amended notification dated 04.11.2019, issued by the MCI bringing about some changes in the Regulations, which are known as the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019. In the

¶33

¶34

amended Regulations, as per the Regulation 11.2.9 (j), there is scope for awarding grace marks upto a maximum of 5 marks at the discretion of the University to a ‘learner’ for clearing the examinations as a whole. Thus, it is pointed out that there is scope under the new Regulations for awarding 5 grace marks even if the student has failed in more than one subject. But admittedly, the provisions of the amended Regulations, 2019, insofar as Part-II is concerned, is specifically made applicable to the students who were admitted to M.B.B.S. course from the academic year 2019-20 onwards. Therefore, the benefit of the amended Regulations cannot be availed of by the petitioner.

¶35

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is

¶36

accordingly rejected.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

Nini S v. National Medical Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nini S v. National Medical Council

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

Sri. Y K Gopala Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Renuka Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Venkateshappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jyothi I T I Vs the State of Karnataka

Anisha. S. M. Vs National Medical Council

Miss Riya Bijoy Vs the State of Karnataka