Dismissed

V Vamshi Krishna v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023WP/11688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the University's ordinance on Central Assessment Programme for valuation of answer scripts. It held that the ordinance was validly promulgated under Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994, and that the procedure for evaluation is a matter of academic policy not subject to judicial interference in the absence of arbitrariness.

What the court decided

AI extract

V Vamshi Krishna Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11688 OF 2023 (EDN-RES) C/W

¶6

WP. NO.20716 OF 2022, WP. NO.7775 OF 2023, WP. NO.11027 OF 2023, WP. NO.11644 OF 2023, WP. NO.11655 OF 2023, WP. NO.11723 OF 2023, WP. NO.11974 OF 2023, WP. NO.12033 OF 2023, WP. NO.12057 OF 2023, WP. NO.12143 OF 2023, WP. NO.15319 OF 2023, WP. NO.17660 OF 2023,

¶7

IN W.P.NO.11688 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V. VAMSHI KRISHNA S/O V. SHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO. 418,OPP. MUDIGALAMMA TEMPLE, DAM ROAD, HOSPET-583201.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMESHA H E, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU-560041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶16

2 . THE REGISTRAR(EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041.

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN DENYING THE PETITIONER RE EVALUATION OF BIOCHEMISTRY PAPER 1 AND 2 R-1 UNIVERSITY IS ILLEGAL ANNEXURE-A AND B AND DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN DENIED THE REEVALUATE THE PETITIONER'S BIOCHEMISTRY PAPERS IS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶20

IN W.P.NO.20716 OF 2022

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

[

¶23

1 . MR. SANDEEP DEVARAJ S/O DEVARAJA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS REG. NO. 19M1370, R/AT NO. 28/396, VIDHYASHREE COLONY, MAIN ROAD, BASAVAKALYANA, BIDAR 585327 STUDENT OF B V V SANGAHAS NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE BAGALKOT.

¶24

2 . MR. KARTHIK Y S/O S YOGISH

¶25

¶26

AGED 22 YEARS, REG NO. 19M2920, R/AT NO. 549, 3^rd MAIN, 11^th CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGAR HASSAN 573 201 STUDENT OF SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SHIVAMOGGA

¶27

...PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHNESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND :

¶30

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION

¶31

2 . THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET – 14, SECTOR – 8 DWARAKA PHASE-1 NEW DELHI – 110077 (REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION)

¶32

….RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. HARSHA Y.D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDINANCE/NOTIFICATION DATED 05.09.2022 VIDE No.RGU/AUTH/24^TH CON/SYND/04/202223 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M BY DECLARING THAT THE SAME ULTRAVIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.31335/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXUREB, IN W.P.NO.13626/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E, W.P.NO.10244/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G SINCE

¶35

¶36

AFFIRMED IN W.A.NO.771/2021 AND THE REGULATION OF THE R-2 DATED 04.08.2020 VIDE No.MCI(34)(41)(GEN)MED/2020/13080 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A1.

¶37

IN W.P.NO.7775 OF 2023

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

MS. RUMAN RANJANGI D/O HAJILAL RANJANGI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MANAGULI AGATTI HOUSE NO.698, KIRTI NAGAR BIJAPUR-586101.

¶40

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041.

¶43

….RESPONDENT

¶44

(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶46

¶47

IN WP NO.200852/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNX-F AND IN WP NO.7774 OF 2022 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G.

¶48

IN W.P.NO.11027 OF 2023

¶49

BETWEEN

¶50

MS. PRATHIPATHI SWARNA D/O P SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR JAIN KALYANA MANTHAPPA WARD No.17, VENKATESHWARA COLONY SINDHANUR RAICHUR-584128.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHNESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041.

¶55

…RESPONDENT

¶56

(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE

¶58

¶59

THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 200862/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNX-F AND IN WP NO. 7774/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G.

¶60

IN W.P.NO.11644 OF 2023

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

MS. PIDATHALA LAKSHMI PRANAVI D/O P KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT No.229, S V HOMES K.M. COLONY, OPP:J.N.T.U. ANANTHAPURAM ANDHRA PRADESH – 512 002

¶63

..PETITIONER

¶64

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND:

¶66

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041.

¶67

….RESPONDENT

¶68

(BY SMT. MAMATHA, GURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO SENT THE

¶70

¶71

ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR OF REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.200862/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEX-F AND IN W.P.NO.7774/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEX-G.

¶72

IN W.P.NO.11655 OF 2023

¶73

BETWEEN

¶74

S RAKSHITHA D/O S.M. HEMESHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT UJJANI ROAD, HOSAHALLI, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583218.

¶75

...PETITIONER

¶76

(BY SRI. RAMESHA H E, ADVOCATE)

¶77

AND:

¶78

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶79

2 . THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041.

¶80

¶81

3 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSIONER POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶82

…RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶84

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN DENYING THE PETITIONER RE-EVALUATION OF BIOCHEMISTRY PAPER 1 AND 2 RESPONDENT No.1 UNIVERSITY IS ILLEGAL ANNEXURE-A AND B AND DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN DENIED THE RE-EVALUATE THE PETITIONER'S BIOCHEMISTRY PAPERS IS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

¶85

IN W.P.NO.11723 OF 2023

¶86

BETWEEN:

¶87

PAVAN C S/O ANIL KUMAR. C AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, WARD NO.2, IMAM KHAN STREET, BENGALURU ROAD, BALLARI-583102.

¶88

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA H E, ADVOCATE)

¶89

¶90

AND:

¶91

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶92

2 . THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041.

¶93

…RESPONDENTS

¶94

(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶95

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN DENYING THE PETITIONERS RE EVALUATION OF ANATOMY PAPER 1 AND 2 R-1 UNIVERSITY IS ILLEGAL, ANNEXURE-A AND B AND DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN DENIED THE RE EVALUATE THE PETITIONERS ANATOMY PAPERS ARE ILLEGAL.

¶96

IN W.P.NO.11974 OF 2023

¶97

BETWEEN:

¶98

MS. PONNAM BINDHU YOSHITHA D/O PONNA SIVA RAMA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NEAR SAHANA ABC SCHOOL AADHARSHA COLONY SINDHANUR

¶99

¶100

RAICHUR 584128 (STUDENT OF SAPTHAGIRI OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BANGALORE )

¶101

...PETITIONER

¶102

(BY SRI. K.B MOHNESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶103

AND:

¶104

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041

¶105

….RESPONDENT

¶106

(BY SMT : MAMATA GURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶107

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.200862/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND IN WP NO.7774 OF 2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G.

¶108

¶109

IN W.P.NO.12033 OF 2023

¶110

BETWEEN:

¶111

MR. HARSHAVARDHAN Y S/O YELLAPPA M AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT HOSTEL SAPTHAGIRI MEDICAL COLLEGE NO 15, HESARGHATTA ROAD NAVY LAYOUT, CHIKKASANDRA, CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE 560090 (STUDENT OF SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BANGALORE)

¶112

...PETITIONER

¶113

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶114

AND:

¶115

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041

¶116

….RESPONDENT

¶117

(BY SRI. MADUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

¶118

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST

¶119

¶120

OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 200862/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND IN WP NO. 7774 OF 2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G.

¶121

IN W.P.NO.12057 OF 2023

¶122

BETWEEN:

¶123

MR. SURAJ KARLI D/O SRINIVASALU KARLI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO 4-5-28/9A SRI LAXMI NIVAS, WANIKERI LAYOUT YADAGIRI 585201 (STUDENT OF NAVODAYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, RAICHUR)

¶124

...PETITIONER

¶125

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶126

AND:

¶127

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041

¶128

….RESPONDENT

¶129

(BY SRI. MADUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

¶130

¶131

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 200862/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND IN WP NO. 7774 OF 2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G.

¶132

IN W.P.NO.12143 OF 2023

¶133

BETWEEN:

¶134

1 . MR. SANDESH M WARAD S/O MALLIKARJUN S WARAD, AGED 22 YEARS, R/AT HOSTEL KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA – 581301

¶135

2 . MR. PREETHAM G S S/O SHIVAMURTHY S AGED 21 YEARS R/AT NEAR GURUSIDDESHWARA TEMPLE, NALLIKATTE, KALGERE BHARAMSAGARA, CHITRADURGA-577522

¶136

3 . MS. SINDHU P BHOVI D/O PARASHURAM BHOVI AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT NAVODAYA NAGAR, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA ROAD, DHARWAD – 580003

¶137

¶138

4 . MR. DARSHAN K M S/O MAHESH AGED 21 YEARS R/AT KOLLANGI VILLAGE, MALLIPATTANA, ARKALGUD, HASSAN – 573102

¶139

5 . MAHANTH KUMAR P S/O MURALI KRISHNA, AGED 22 YEARS, NO. 250, 3^RD CROSS, T. DASARHALLI, BENGALURU- 560057

¶140

6 . LOHITH C S/O CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY AGED 23 YEARS, R/A SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU-560088

¶141

...PETITIONERS

¶142

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶143

AND:

¶144

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041

¶145

….RESPONDENT

¶146

(BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶147

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SEND THE ANSWER

¶148

¶149

SCRIPTS TO THE THIRD VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE OF BEST OF TWO MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE THREE EXAMINERS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.200862/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND IN W.P.NO.7774 OF 2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G.

¶150

IN W.P.NO.15319 OF 2023

¶151

BETWEEN:

¶152

SRI. VINAYKUMAR. H. N. S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.274, 2^ND CROSS, HALAHALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

¶153

...PETITIONER

¶154

(BY SRI. S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE)

¶155

AND:

¶156

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)

¶157

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET-14, SECTOR-A, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

¶158

…RESPONDENTS

¶159

(BY SRI. MADUSUDHAN R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

¶160

¶161

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED. 5.9.22 WITH NO. RGU/AUTH/24CON/SYND/4/2022-23 NOTIFYING THE ORDINANCE/NOTIFICATION GOVERNING CENTRAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (CAP) FOR THEORY PAPER ASSESSMENT OF A11 UNDER GRADUATE HEALTH SCIENCE COURSED OF UNIVERSITY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 1.9.22 AND TO DECLARE THE ORDINANCE TO COME INTO FORCE FROM THE EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 1.5.22 IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 UNIVERSITY TAKEN ON 20.4.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶162

IN W.P.NO.17660 OF 2023

¶163

BETWEEN:

¶164

1 . SRI. SHANTANU KADIAN S/O. SUNDERLAL KADIYAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO. 101-A/22, VIKAAS DARAM KANTHAGALLI, JANTA COLONY, ROTAK, HARIYANA STATE-124 001.

¶165

2 . MS. MALINI D/O. MANJUNATH. J, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT SHARAVATHI GIRLS HOSTEL, SRIDEVI MEDICAL COLLEGE, SIRA ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 106.

¶166

3 . SRI. MOHAMMED ARFAN S/O. B. N. ABDUL AZIA,

¶167

¶168

	AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT BEYOND GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE, KUNDAPURA, DAKSHINA KANNADA-576 201.
4 .	MS. SAHANA KALASAGOND D/O. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT ANAND NAGAR, NEAR SHANTINIKETAN COLLEGE, VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
5 .	SRI. YASHAVANT. P S/O. RAVICHANDRA KUMAR. P, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HOSTEL, BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
6 .	SRI. DEEKSHIT. S S/O. SHIVASHANKAR. B, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HOSTEL, KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KARWAR-581 301.
7 .	SRI. NITHIN PATIL S/O. SHATHVEER PATIL, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT HOSTEL, M.R. MEDICAL COLLEGE, KALABURAGI-585 101.
8 .	SRI. DADA KALANDAR S/O. ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HOSTEL, BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶169

¶170

AND HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶171

9 . MS. CHANDANA. B D/O. C. R. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT GIRSL HOSTEL, BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶172

...PETITIONERS

¶173

(BY SRI. K.B. MOHANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶174

AND:

¶175

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041, (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, EVALUATION)

¶176

….RESPONDENT

¶177

(BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶178

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD 05.09.2022 VIDE NO. RGU/AUTH/24CON/SYND/04/202223 PRODUCED AS ANNX-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONER FOR ONE ANOTHER VALUATION AND DECLARE THE RESULTS BASED UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE HIGHEST MARKS SO DECLARED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SUBSEQUENT VALUATION.

¶179

¶180

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶181

O R D E R

¶182

The petitioner filed W.P.No.11688/2023 seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's Biochemistry papers 1 and 2 from 3^rd evaluator on the ground that while evaluating both the papers, 1^st evaluator gave marks around 25.5 and another evaluator gave marks around 25.5 and in the Biochemistry paper-II, he has secured marks 50.5 and 37 evaluated by the two different evaluators and there are lot of difference between them. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to re-evaluate both Biochemistry papers 1 and 2.

¶183

The petitioners in W.P.No.20716/202 are

¶184

the students of 1^st year MBBS Rs-4 (2019). The respondent - University prescribes the mode of

¶185

¶186

conduct of examinations and respondent No.2 prescribes the curriculum and conduct of entire course of Under/Post Graduate Medical examinations across the whole of India. The respondent No.2 prescribed a scheme of valuation where the valuators are to be secured from another university. The petitioners had appeared for the examinations conducted in the month of May 2022 and respondent- University declared the petitioners as failed. It is contended that the marks awarded by the valuators and there are several instances of the valuators awarding zero mark and one mark for the same question and there is difference seen as a case of erratic valuation as per the decision of this Court in W.P.No.200852/2021. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 issued a fresh notification for all schemes of under graduate programme. The petitioners sought for relief of quashing the ordinance/notification dated 05.09.2022

¶187

¶188

as ultravires and sought for mandamus to send the petitioners answer scripts to fresh revaluation by two external valuators or two internal valuators.

¶189

In W.P.No.7775/2023, petitioner is the

¶190

student of MBBS course belongs to RS-4 batch. The respondent-University issued a notification dated 18.08.2012 wherein a scheme for valuation was notified stating that there is no scope for revaluation and the only remedy for re-totaling. University issued another notification dated 01.02.2021. By the said notification, scheme of valuation is conducted by a panel of two internal examiners and in the event the difference of marks between the two evaluators is 15% or more then answer script is referred to third valuation and the best of two higher marks is reckoned for announcing the result. The said notification was challenged in W.P No.13626/2021. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court disposed of the

¶191

¶192

said writ petition on 07.10.2021. The university issued impugned ordinance dated 05.09.2022. By the present scheme of valuation is by two valuators and the best of two marks awarded by the two valuators is reckoned for announcement of results. There is no scope for revaluation by the deviation method. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶193

In W.P.No.11027/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent-university and she belongs to the RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent refused to send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent - university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results. The petitioner has challenged the ordinance dated 05.09.2022.

¶194

¶195

In W.P.No.11644/2023, the petitioner

¶196

appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent university and she belongs to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent refuse to send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent-university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results.

¶197

In W.P.No.11655/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent No.1-university. While evaluate both the papers first evaluator gave 42.5 and another evaluator gave marks around 38. There is a lot of difference between both the evaluators. It is contended that in Biochemistry paper-II, the petitioner has secured marks 46 and 32 evaluated by

¶198

¶199

the two different persons, though they have valued lot of difference between them. The petitioner passed in two subjects i.e., Anatomy and Physiology, but failed in Biochemistry and prayed to direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's Biochemistry papers 1 and 2 from third evaluator.

¶200

In W.P.No.11723/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent No.1-university. While evaluate both the papers, first evaluator gave 40.5 and another evaluator gave around 36.5 in Anatomy subject. There is a lot of difference between them. Hence, there is a erratic evaluation by the evaluators and prayed to direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's anatomy paper No.1 and 2 from the third evaluator.

¶201

¶202

In W.P.No.11974/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent university and she belongs to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent refuse to send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent-university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results. The petitioner has challenged the ordinance dated 05.09.2022.

¶203

In W.P.No.12033/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent-university and he belongs to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent refuse to send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent-university to send the

¶204

¶205

answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results.

¶206

In W.P.No.12057/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent-university and he belongs to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent-university refuse to send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent - university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results.

¶207

In W.P.No.12143/2023, the petitioners appeared for the examination conducted by the respondent-university and they belong to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent-university refuse to send the answer of the petitioners to the third

¶208

¶209

valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent - university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results.

¶210

In W.P.No.15319/2023, the petitioner appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent-university and he belongs to RS-4 batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent is refuse the send the answer of the petitioner to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent - university to send the answer scripts to the third valuator for revaluation and announce the results. The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 05.09.2022 and to send the answer scripts of the petitioner for another valuation.

¶211

In W.P.No.17660/2023, the petitioners appeared for the examinations conducted by the respondent-university and they belongs to RS-4

¶212

¶213

batch. It is contended that the percentage of difference is more than 15% and the respondent refuse to send the answer of the petitioners to the third valuation. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent - university to send the answer scripts to the 3^rd valuator for revaluation and announce the results. The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 05.09.2022 and to send the answer scripts of the petitioners for another valuation.

¶214

Respondent-University has filed a common statement of objections except in W.P.No.15319/2023. It is contended that due to phenomenal increase in the number of institutions and students admitted to various courses of medical, dental, Allied Health Sciences, Nursing and Pharmacy etc., warranted the need to regulate, monitor and standardize the curriculum as well as evaluation systems the university with vision to bring in

¶215

¶216

uniformity in the standards of teaching and have a common curriculum for the various courses offered in different colleges across the state. The regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'GME Regulations, 2019' for short) are applicable to the petitioners who are admitted for the academic year 2019 onwards (known as RS-4 scheme students) and the GME regulation of 1997 are applicable to the MBBS students (RS-3 scheme students) who were admitted upto the academic year 2018. In terms of the National Medical Council, regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'GME regulation 1997' for short), the University had issued the ordinance dated 29.03.2019, which inter alia provided that, in case of deviation valuation in respect of theory examination answer scripts, where difference in award of total marks between two examiners in general

¶217

¶218

valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, such answer scripts shall be referred to third examiner for evaluation. The said ordinance was questioned in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters. This Court quashed the ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and held that the answer scripts shall be evaluated by the 4^th examiners in terms of regulation 13(2) of GME regulation 1997.

¶219

In the meanwhile, the National Medical Commission Amended the Graduate Medical Education (GME regulation 1997) and brought the regulation on GME regulation (Amendment) 2019, which is applicable for the students admitted to MBBS course for the academic year 2019-20 and onwards. In terms of new amended regulations 11.2.9 permits the concerned university to access the theory papers under the Central Assessment Programme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAP'). Pursuant to the order passed by

¶220

¶221

this Court in W.P. No.31335/2019, the University promulgated the ordinance dated 13.10.2000 as per regulation 13(2), it was applicable to the students who had obtained admissions under and during the regime of GME regulation 1997. The students who had taken admission up to academic year 2018-19 are covered under the GME regulation 1997 and are covered under the RS-3 scheme of University. The said ordinance did not prescribe deviation valuation, but had only provided for evaluation by 4 examiners. The said ordinance came to be challenged in W.P.No.231/2021 . The said writ petition came to be allowed and quashed the ordinance dated 13.10.2020. The students who had taken admission for the academic year 2019-20 onwards were governed under GME regulation 2019 and the admissions were termed as RS-4 scheme students. Due to covid-19 pandemic examinations were postponed and were scheduled to

¶222

¶223

be held in the month of February 2021. Since regulation 13(2) of GME regulations 1997 was not applicable to RS-4 scheme students and the GME Regulations 2019 are applicable. The Regulation No.11.2.9 (j) GME regulations 2019 provides a discretionary power to the concerned universities to valuate/assess theory papers under CAP. The University issued ordinance dated 01.02.2021 by exercising powers under Section 13(2) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'RGUHS Act, 1994' for short). The said ordinance was placed before the academic council for its concurrence and approval as required under sub section 3 of Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994 and the committee of the academic council in its meeting held on 18.02.2021 ratified the said ordinance and recommended the same to be placed before the syndicate and having deliberated on the same,

¶224

¶225

passed a resolution dated 21.02.2021 approving the said ordinance. The said ordinance was promulgated strictly in accordance with provisions of RGUHS Act, 1994 and in accordance with the powers conferred there under. The said ordinance dated 01.02.2021 was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.13626/2021 and directed the university, before promulgating the next ordinance, the university shall ensure that the matter is placed before the Committee of Academic Council and it shall act according to the advise of the Academic Council. As per the direction made in W.P.No.13626/2021 university decided to promulgate an ordinance for RS-4 MBBS batch students as such the respondent University in it's meetings of committee of Academic Council conducted on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022, wherein the Committee of Academic Council deliberated the issue raised in previous Academic Council meeting dated

¶226

¶227

20.04.2022 and recommended the procedure for valuation of the examination being conducted on or before 01.09.2022 for medical along with other under graduate courses.

¶228

The recommendation of the committee of academic council was placed before the syndicate, the syndicate approved the recommendation of the academic council, thereafter, the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 was issued under Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994. The said ordinance was challenged in W.P.No.12989/2022, the said writ petition was disposed of by observing that the university has conducted valuation in terms of the ordinance dated 15.06.2012 for May 2022 examination and the new ordinance is applicable prospectively for the examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022 and the same cannot be applied retrospectively for RS-4 students who took their examination in May 2022. The

¶229

¶230

students of RS-4 batch who failed in May 2022 supplementary examination had approached this Court in W.P.No.16352/2022 and connected cases, seeking implementation of the impugned ordinance i.e., ordinance dated 05.09.2022 retrospectively. The Co-ordinate bench disposed of the writ petition by giving retrospective effect to the said ordinance from 01.05.2022. The university aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.16352/2022 filed a Writ Appeal No.1208/2022. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.16352/2022 and consequently dismissed the writ petition. Subsequently, the University conducted the main examination (annual) in February 2023 and have conducted valuation of theory papers as per the ordinance dated 05.09.2022. It is contended that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 has been upheld in W.A.No.1208/2022. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶231

¶232

Statement of objections filed in W.P.No. 15319/2023:

¶233

The GME regulations 2019 are applicable to the petitioners who are admitted for the academic year 2019 onwards (known as RS-4 scheme students) and the GME regulation of 1997 are applicable to the MBBS students (RS-3 scheme students) who were admitted up to the academic year 2018 as decided and made applicable by the university. The university by exercising it's power under Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act, 1994 promulgated ordinance dated 01.02.2021. The said ordinance was placed before the academic council for its concurrence and approval as required under section 35(3) of RGUHS Act of 1994 and the Committee of Academic Council in it's meeting held on 18.02.2021 and the Academic Council having ratified the said ordinance recommended the same to be

¶234

¶235

placed before the Syndicate and having deliberated on the same, passed a resolution dated 21.02.2021 approving the said ordinance. The said ordinance was challenged by some of the students in writ petition No.13626/2021. This Court set aside the ordinance and directed the university that before promulgating the next ordinance the university shall ensure that the matter is placed before the Committee of Academic Council and it shall act according to the advise of the Academic Council. Pursuant to the direction issued in W.P.No.13626/2021, respondent-university decided to promulgate the ordinance for RS-4 MBBS batch students. The respondent-university in it's meeting of Committee of Academic Council conducted on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022 deliberated the issue raised in the previous Academic Council meeting and recommended the procedure for valuation of examinations being conducted on or after

¶236

¶237

01.09.2022 for medical along with under graduate courses. The recommendation of the Academic Council was approved by the Syndicate, thereafter ordinance dated 05.09.2022 was issued under Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994. The said ordinance was challenged in W.P. No.16352/2022, the said ordinance was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The order passed in the writ petition was challenged in W.A.No.1208/2022. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and consequently dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 11.01.2023. Subsequently, the university conducted a supplementary examination in the month of April and May 2023. The petitioner failed in ENT subject and approached the Court, seeking for implementation of ordinance dated 05.09.2022 with retrospective effect and the relief sought by the petitioner is contrary to

¶238

¶239

the order passed in W.A.No.1208/2022 and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶240

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

¶241

and learned counsel for the respondent- university.

¶242

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 was not placed before the academic council as directed by this Court in the case of Sahana Kalasagond and others Vs. Rajeev Gandhi University . He submits that there is no reference about the deliberation in the committee of academic council i.e., what was the deliberation, what was discussed and what was the resolution passed by the committee of Academic Council. He submits that if there is any erratic evaluation there is no scope for evaluation as per impugned ordinance. He submits that due to vast difference of highest score and lowest score the Court is required to uphold

¶243

¶244

the rule of law by issuing a mandamus directing the university to send the answer scripts to the revaluation and then declare the results by taking into consideration the test of 2 marks from 3 valuation scores awarded by all 3 evaluators. Hence, they pray to allow the writ petition.

¶245

Per contra, Sri. Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior counsel for respondent-University submits that no law was laid down in the order passed in the W.P.No.200852/2019, further before passing an impugned ordinance dated 05.09.2022 there was a deliberation before the committee of Academic Council meeting held on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the syndicate on 02.09.2022 and 05.09.2022 and accordingly, in the exercise of powers conferred under sub section (1) of Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994 and syndicate was pleased to promulgate the impugned ordinance. He submits that

¶246

¶247

there is no erratic valuation in the instant cases and the valuation made by the examiners is in accordance with law. He further submits that for declaration of result based on the consideration of highest marks so declared. He further submits that none of the petitioners have challenged the process of regulations of medical council. He submits that only few students have challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned ordinance. He submits that prayer sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. He submits that the impugned ordinance issued by the university is in accordance with law and further the petitioners have not shown the grounds on which the impugned ordinance is arbitrary. He further submits that the procedure for evaluating the answer script is a matter of academic policy of the university consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education and it is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such

¶248

¶249

policy, in the absence of arbitrariness. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶250

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr.Yerra Trinadh and others in Civil Appeal No.8038 of 2022 has held that, sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet in absence of any regulation for reevaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI Rules or in the University Rules/Ordinances. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the case of petitioner. It is also settled position that it is for the academic body of the university to decide on the method and mode of conduct of examination and evaluation and declaration of results.

¶251

¶252

Per Contra, learned counsel Sri. N. Khetty for respondent-National Medical Commission, submits that UGC has given a power to all the university to conduct exams. He submits that the university is conducting the exams as per the ordinance promulgated by the university. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶253

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶254

The university issued an ordinance dated 29.03.2019 governing Under Graduate (UG) valuation of answer scripts which provides in case of a deviation, valuation in respect of theory examination, answer scripts, where difference in award of total marks between two examiners in general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for

¶255

¶256

the paper. Such answer scripts shall be referred to a 3^rd examiner for evaluation. The said ordinance was challenged in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected cases. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court quashed the ordinance and directed the university that the answer scripts be evaluated by the 4^th examiner in terms of Regulation 13(2) of Graduate Medical Education regulation, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'GME regulation 1997' for short). On 04.11.2019, the National Medical Commission amended the GME regulation 1997 and brought GME (amendment) Regulation 2019, which is made applicable to the universities and governs the students admitted to MBBS course for the academic year 2019-20 and onwards. Regulation 11.2.9 of GME regulation 2019 provides for appointment of examiners, clause (j) permitted the concerned universities to access the theory papers under the central assessment

¶257

¶258

programme (CAP). First batch under RS-4 scheme admitted to the MBBS course for the academic year 2019-20 where date to appear in 1^st year MBBS examination was scheduled for June 2020, however, due to covid-19 pandemic situation neither any examinations were conducted by the university till February 2021 nor regulating the ordinance was given effect to providing for (CAP) until 1.02.2021. The said ordinance was challenged in W.P.No.31335/2019 in the case of Neelesh Mehta Vs. RGUHS and another . The university promulgated a new ordinance dated 13.10.2020 , the said ordinance was made applicable to the students who had admitted after GME regulation 1997 regime. Students who have taken up admission for the academic year 2018-19 are covered under the GME regulation 1997 (known as RS-3 scheme of RGUHS). The said ordinance applicable to RS-3 scheme batch did not prescribe

¶259

¶260

deviation valuation but had only 4 evaluations by 4 examiners. The ordinance dated 13.10.2020 was challenged in W.P No.231/2021 i.e., in the case of Basanth K.B Vs. RGUHS and another . The Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition vide order dated 11.02.2021 and quashed the ordinance dated 13.10.2020 and directed that wherever there is difference of 15% or more in 4 valuations the same shall be sent to the 5^th valuation. The university issued ordinance dated 01.02.2021 which was made applicable to RS-4 batch students. The said ordinance was challenged in W.P.No.13626/2021 and connected matters (Sahana Kalasangond Vs. RGUHS and others). On 07.10.2021, this Court quashed the ordinance dated 01.2.2021 and directed the university to follow the requisite process before promulgating the new ordinance.

¶261

¶262

In order to consider the case in hand, it is necessary to examine Section 35 of the Act which reads as under:

¶263

35. Ordinances: (1) The Syndicate may, from time to time, make Ordinances and amend or repeal the same.

¶264

(2) subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinance may provide for the following matters, namely:

¶265

(a) Admission of the students to the University and its affiliated colleges and the levy of fees for admission to the University, colleges and University laboratories;

¶266

(b) courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University; (c) conditions under which students shall be admitted to the courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University:

¶267

(d) conduct of examinations of the University and the conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examinations.

¶268

¶269

(e) manner in which exemption relating to admission of students to examination may be given;

¶270

(f) manner in which exemption relating to admission of students to examination may be given;

¶271

(g) maintenance of discipline among students;

¶272

(h) fees to be charged for various courses of study, research, experiment and practical training and for admission to various university examinations;

¶273

(i) all other matters which by this Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided by the Ordinances.

¶274

(3) In making an Ordinance the syndicate shall consult:

¶275

(a) the Boards of Studies in matters relating to the appointment and duties of examiners and

¶276

(b) the Academic council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students.

¶277

(4) Every Ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as the Syndicate may specify and every

¶278

¶279

Ordinance so made shall be submitted to the Chancellor and the senate for information.

¶280

Section 35(1) provides that Syndicate may from time to time make ordinances, amend or repeal. Section 35(3)(b) states that in making ordinance the Syndicate shall consult the academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or the Syndicate shall consult the academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. In the instant case, where the university decided to introduce the digital valuation system for evaluating answer scripts of all examinations in the Health Science subjects from May 2016 onwards and promulgated ordinance dated 29.03.2019. In respect of under graduate examination, several notification governing the system of evaluation were issued by the University from time to time. The process of evaluation

¶281

¶282

contending the previous notification were subject matter of several writ petitions. This Court ordered that as and when an ordinance is re-promulgated, it has to be discussed in the Committee of Academic Council and Syndicate. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the university has placed the matter for deliberation before the Committee of Academic Council Meetings held on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022. The Committee of Academic Council recommended to promulgate impugned ordinance in supersession of all the previous ordinances/notifications pertaining to the answer script evaluation. The same was placed before Minutes of 172^nd Syndicate meeting held on 02.09.2022 and 05.09.2022. The Syndicate also was pleased to promulgate the impugned ordinance. The impugned ordinance came into force with effect from the examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022.

¶283

¶284

The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of RGUHS and another Vs. Mr.Samarth SS and others in W.A.No.1208/2022 disposed of on 11.01.2023 held that the impugned ordinance is in accordance with Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994.

¶285

The legislature and the delegate are the

¶286

sole repositories of the power to decide the policies which should be pursued in relation to the matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal lacunas in its merits, in the sense if it's being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in

¶287

¶288

the present case. The Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994 makes it clear that a duty is cast on the Syndicate to formulate its ordinances, amend or repeal in consultation with the Academic Council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or condition of residence of students. It s perfectly within the competence of syndicate in consultation with the academic council, rather, it was its plain duty to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to matters of examination. All these are undoubtfully matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore within the ambit of the power to make ordinance amend or repeal contended by section 35 of the Act, unless it can be said that ordinance is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable or partial. The said ordinance was promulgated by the prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in

¶289

¶290

preference to those formulated by the professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day today working institutions and the department controlling them. It would be wholly wrong on the part of the Court to make a pandentic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and gross route problems involved in the working of system and unmindful of consequences which would eminate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one way to be propounded . It is equally important, Court should avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or byelaw which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. The procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university.

¶291

¶292

The petitioners are the students who do not have any right to dictate the university with regard to the process of revaluation as the same is the policy decision to be made by the university and the same cannot be done on the whims and fancies of the students. The university is conferred by statute in rule making power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in ( 1984) 4 SCC 27 held that, it is the university, the state/central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation it should be left to the academicians to do their jobs and the Court should reframe in treading to their territory of policy decision. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parents association, RGUHS Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

¶293

¶294

Karnataka in W.P.Nos.2905 and 453/2000 disposed on 19.12.2003 observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university and that when the ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the university consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such a policy in the arbitrariness.

¶295

In the instant case, the petitioners could not point out in regard to arbitrariness in promulgating the impugned ordinance. Further, it is observed that some of the petitioners who have failed in the different subjects in the main examination have subsequently appeared for supplementary examination and have passed in failed subjects. In view of same, I do not

¶296

¶297

find any grounds to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶298

SD/JUDGE

¶299

sks

V Vamshi Krishna v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V Vamshi Krishna v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anasuyamma Vs Shivamma

Vamana Prabhu Vs Gopalakrishna Prabhu

D.P. Prakash Murthy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Sannapalamma Vs S Obaiah

Sri Rajashekar Vs F N Nanjappa

St Antonys Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka