Allowed

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking fresh evaluation of Dr. M.D. Ayurveda final examination theory papers. The court held that the University's evaluation violated Regulation 14(2) regarding the number and composition of examiners, relying on a coordinate bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued to conduct fresh evaluation of theory answer papers under Regulation 14(2) and announce results afresh within four weeks.

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu Vs Rajiv Gandhi… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.131 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. KANDURI RAMANUJACHARYULU S/O SHRI K SRINIVASACHARYULU AGED 28 YEARS, UNI. RE. NO.19AP204 R/O C/O SHRI K SRINIVASACHARYULU D.NO.1-75/15, SHANKAR NAIDU COLONY TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATI ANDHRA PRADESH-517 503.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHISHIK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR.

¶13

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B S SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 TO CONDUCT FRESH EVALUATION OF THE THEORY ANSWER PAPERS OF THE FINAL M.D. AYURVEDA (RS3) PANCHAKARMA EXAMINATIONS OF

¶17

¶18

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶19

OCTOBER 2022 UNDER TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE REGULATION 14(2) OF THE INDIAN MEDICINE CENTRAL COUNCIL (POST GRADUATE AYURVEDA EDUCATION) REGULATIONS, 2016 AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH; IN TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 17.11.222 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.16997 OF 2022 AND WRIT PETITION NO.17040 OF 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel

¶23

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by wrongful valuation of the theory answer papers of the failed subjects of the Final M.D.Ayurveda (RS3) Panchakarma Examinations of October 2022 and also petitioner sought for two additional valuation of the theory answer paper of the failed subjects undertaken by the petitioner at the end of 3 years course of study. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent-University had evaluated the answer scripts arbitrarily without adhering to the standards of appointment of the

¶25

¶26

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶27

examiners as notified by the NCISM (Erstwhile CCIM) under Clause 14(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 (for short, hereinafter referred as Regulations, 2016). It is further stated by the petitioner that it is apparent on the face of the record that evaluation of the answer scripts has to be conduced by four evaluators and the answer scripts in this case do not show that whether the papers are evaluated by internal or external evaluators as prescribed under Clause 14(2) of the Regulations, 2016. Hence, notification of the respondent-University is in clear contravention of the standards notified by the NCISM/CCIM and the same is arbitrary and illegal.

¶28

This petition would not take much long time to decide for the simple reason that, in identical circumstances, the students had approached Co-ordinate Bench of this court challenging the very same Ordinance/notification dated 29.03.2019, questioning the very same aspect of evaluation methodology adopted by respondent-University which is in violation and

¶29

¶30

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶31

contravention with the Clause 14(2) of the Regulations, 2016. The Clause 14(2) of the Regulations, 2016 is reproduced as under:

¶32

“14.(2) The Preliminary examination shall be

¶33

conducted by a team of two examiners, out of which one examiner shall be external from any other institution and the final examination shall be conducted by a team of four examiners, out of which two examiners shall be external from any other institution.”

¶34

This court had examined the said aspect of evaluation methodology and struck down the said ordinance on the ground that Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 issued is in violation of the Regulations, 2016 itself as Clause 14(2) provides for examination to be conducted by four examiners, out of which two examiners shall be external institutions and two of them from the internal. Accordingly, the said Ordinance was struck down as being in violation with the Regulations, 2016 itself and being unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, the petitioner

¶35

¶36

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶37

herein who is aggrieved by the violation of Clause 14(2) is entitled for the similar order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in WP Nos.16997 of 2022 connected with WP No.17040 of 2022, decided on 17.11.2022. However, respondent-University has not challenged the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court and accepted the said order. In view of the same, this petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶40

ii) The writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to conduct fresh evaluation of the Theory Answer papers of Final M.D. Ayurveda (RS3) Panchakarma Examinations of October 2022 undertaken by the petitioner in terms of the Regulation/Clause 14(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 and announce the results afresh thereafter;

¶41

¶42

WP No. 131 of 2023

¶43

iii) The said exercise shall be conducted and completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Twinkle Sahoo Vs Sri. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Nagaraja Rao C H Vs Arun Kumar a D

Smt. Sushmitha Patil Vs Sri Manjunagouda Patil

Mohammed Sanaulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Sindhu Rajasekhar Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Tahira Sheroon Vs Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences