Allowed

Mr. Saheer Mohammed, v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023WP/11809/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner student challenged theory paper evaluation alleging third examiner errors. Court found evaluators failed to distinguish answers for Q1 and Q2. Petitioner allowed to re-evaluate disputed question within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-University directed to re-evaluate theory paper afresh only in respect of Question No.1 within four weeks.

Mr. Saheer Mohammed, Vs Rajiv Gandhi University… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23378 WP No. 11809 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11809 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SAHEER MOHAMMED, S/O MR. M NAZEEHUDEEN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5B, 508, PROVIDENT SUNWORTH APARTMENTS, 5^TH BLOCK, DODDBALE, BENGALURU-560064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REP BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, 4^TH T BLOCK EAST, PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560041.

¶14

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR(EVALUATION), 4^TH T BLOCK EAST, PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560041.

¶15

RAJARAJESHWARI DENTAL SCIENCES, REP BY ITS DEAN AND DIRECTOR, NO.14, RAMOHALLI, KUMBALGODU, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560047.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:23378 WP No. 11809 of 2023

¶18

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (NOW NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION), REP BY ITS SECRETARY, POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077.

¶19

(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.06.2023)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SAI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO CONDUCT A REVALUATION OF THEORY PAPER QP CODE 6046, ORTHODONTICS PAPER III VIDE ANNEXURE-C TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER REGISTER NO. 18EO581 IN DECEMBER 2021.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned writ petition is filed by a student who

¶26

is pursuing MD Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court on the ground that though marks are assigned by all the evaluators, on account of faulty evaluation done by the third examiner, there is an error in totaling and this has denied him the benefit of fifth valuation on account of deviation.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23378 WP No. 11809 of 2023

¶28

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶29

digital valuation slip which is placed on record by the petitioner vide Annexure-C. On bare perusal of the said valuation slip, I would find that there is an error in assigning marks by the third evaluator. Though petitioner claims that he has not attempted question No.2, all the evaluators have ended up in assigning marks to question No.2. On bare perusal of the valuation slip, I would find that there is an error in assigning the marks.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has placed true copy of the answer sheet. I have gone through the same. Prima-facie , this Court would find that petitioner has attempted question No.1 and not 2. Be that as it may. It was for the evaluators to ascertain whether the answer relates to question No.1 or 2. Even this exercise has not been done by the evaluators, which has caused some prejudice to the petitioner who is claiming that total marks would be completely different and general valuation would exceed

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:23378 WP No. 11809 of 2023

¶33

15%. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case to

¶34

issue appropriate direction to the respondent-University.

¶35

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

(ii) Respondent No.1-University is hereby directed to revaluate the theory paper afresh only in respect of question No.1, which is in dispute, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mr. Saheer Mohammed, v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Saheer Mohammed, v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Thimmegowda Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mohammad Shaanib Imathali Vs State of Karnataka by Mangaluru Women Police

Mrs.Shanthi S Vs Sir M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank

Sri N Ramanath Kudva Vs Smt N Sumathi v Kudva

Smt. Lakshmidevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepika Jena Vs State by Hal Police Station