Dismissed

Drishya Krishnan v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016WP(C)/22340/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his failing marks in General Surgery subject, arguing that rounding off decimal scores in specific papers would result in a pass. Court dismissed petition holding statutory regulations require averaging nearest two evaluations for total computation, denying rounding off for final pass eligibility. Petitioner failed with 57 out of 120 marks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for; Writ petition is dismissed.

Drishya Krishnan Vs Kerala University of Health… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22340 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DRISHYA KRISHNAN, 2010 BATCH, M.B.B.S STUDENT, AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KRIPA HOUSE, PNRA 132 A, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 682 033.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, THRISSUR -680 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, THRISSUR - 680 596.

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN, GRIEVANCE CELL, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, THRISSUR-680 596.

¶13

4. AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 555.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC. R4 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR SC, ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 22340 of 2016 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULTS (PROVISIONAL) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶21

P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE SCORE SHEETS OF THE GENERAL SURGERY THEORY EXAMINATION.

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY VIDE NO. AC II/1795/REGULATIONS/KUHS/2011 DATED 15/11/2011.

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRACTICAL ANSWER BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/02/2016.

¶25

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/03/2016 IN WP(C).NO.9144/2016.

¶26

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8361/DEANSA/KUHS/2014 DATED 18/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22340 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 to the extent the petitioner has failed in a subject- General Surgery. According to the petitioner, there is discrepancy on the part of the University in conducting the evaluation and therefore, if the correct evaluation method is adopted, the petitioner would pass in the said subject. The question is concerning the marks obtained by the petitioner for Theory, wherein, out of 120, petitioner is given only 57 marks. According to the petitioner, he ought to get 58 marks and if so, he will pass in the General Surgery Paper. In other words, deficiency is only with reference to one mark.

¶36

The facts as disclosed would show that the General Surgery Theory Paper is in three parts, ie; Surgery Paper - I GIT, Surgery Paper-I Orthopedics and Surgery Paper-II. The answer papers are valued in a double valuation method as per

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 22340 of 2016

¶38

-2-

¶39

the Regulations. In respect of Surgery Paper-I GIT, the petitioner got 16 out of 30 and 13 out of 30 in the double evaluation. The average would be 14.5, which is less than the minimum 15 required. However, the said paper was sent for third evaluation, wherein the petitioner got only 14 out of 30 and therefore the University took only the average of the nearest two marks, ie; 13 out of 30 and 14 out of 30. According to the petitioner, all the three marks had to be averaged and then he would have obtained 14.3. As far as the Surgery paper -I Orthopedics is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner got a pass mark of 17 out of 30, which is 50% of the maximum marks. In respect of Surgery Paper-II, the petitioner got only 25 out of 60 and 36 out of 60 in the two evaluations and it was sent for third evaluation, wherein the petitioner got 26 out of 60. According to the petitioner, the average of the three ought to be 29 and therefore, he would get 60.3 out of 120 and he will get a pass.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 22340 of 2016

¶42

-3-

¶43

University however submits that as per Regulations, only the average of nearest two evaluations should be taken into account. In respect of Surgery Paper-I, since the petitioner got only 14.5 marks, which is not a pass, the paper was sent for a third valuation, in which he got only 14 out of 30. If the average of 2 nearest marks is taken, the petitioner gets only 13.5. In respect of Surgery Paper -I Orthopedics, there is no dispute. In respect of Surgery Paper-II, while taking the nearest two marks, the petitioner gets only 25.5. Even assuming that the petitioner gets 14.5 for Surgery Paper-I, still the total marks will only be 57. The said marks had been given in Ext.P1 itself.

¶44

While arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that 14.5 marks for the Surgery Paper -I GIT, which was obtained from the first two evaluations ought to have been rounded of as 15 and 25.5 marks obtained for Surgery Paper-II ought to have been rounded of as 26, in which event he would have obtained 58

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 22340 of 2016

¶46

-4-

¶47

marks and a pass in the examination. But it is relevant to note that the rounding of is to be made taking into account the total marks in the different papers coming under a particular subject, in which event, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the University, the petitioner gets only 57 marks. If he gets only 57 marks, admittedly, he cannot have a pass in General Surgery, while computing the theory and viva-voce.

¶48

Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact situation, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any relief as prayed for. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶49

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Scl/14.10.2016

Drishya Krishnan v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Drishya Krishnan v. Kerala 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

Sudheer Vs the University of Calicut

Ismail Ebrahim Kutty Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mohanan Pillai K Vs the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam

Hamsa Vs the Trichur Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Engineers Training Centre Vs Univeristy Grants Commission

Swarnan. T Vs South Indian Bank