Partly allowed

N.Yazhini v. The Pondicherry University

Madras HC15 Sept 2020WP/10560/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the evaluation of medical examination answer scripts. Court directed University to value papers according to an amended circular requiring double valuation with re-totalling, completed within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to value petitioner's answer scripts for failed papers in accordance with Circular No. 50 dated 14.03.2019 within 10 days.

N.Yazhini Vs The Pondicherry University — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH WP No.10560 of 2020

¶2

N.Yazhini ..Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

The Pondicherry University, Rep. By its Registrar, R.V.Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶5

The Controller of Examination, Pondicherry University, R.V.Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry – 605 014.

¶6

The Assistant Registrar (Medical) Public Information Officer, Medical Section, Examination Wing, Pondicherry University, Examination Wing, R.V.Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014. ..Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to (i) to forthwith furnish the petitioner's answer scripts in General Medicine Paper I and II and General Surgery Paper I and II in November 2019, M.B.B.S III Prof. - Part II Theory Examinations conducted in the year November 2019 (ii) to refer the said papers to an independent evaluator and (iii) in the peculiar facts and circumstances to compute the average by taking 1 & 2 Valuation scores alone into consideration for awarding the final marks and to accordingly revise the results of the petitioner in the aforesaid subjects within a limited time frame.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Srinivasan Standing Counsel for R1 to R3.

¶9

1/6

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to evaluate the papers viz., General medicine Paper I and II and General Surgery Paper I and Paper II, in accordance with the regulations governing the Pondicherry University.

¶13

The petitioner has claimed for three reliefs in the present writ petition. The 1^st relief, insofar as furnishing the answer scripts is concerned, this Court has already directed the University to furnish the petitioner with the Answer scripts by an order dated 21.08.2020. What is left to be considered is only with regard to the valuation of the papers sought for by the petitioner in accordance with the regulations.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that she is a M.B.B.S Student who was declared as failed in General Medicine paper I and II and General Surgery Paper I and II, during the examination conducted in November 2019. According to the petitioner, the papers were evaluated thrice and there was a huge variation in the marks awarded between the evaluators. In order to substantiate this contention, the Table Form of Marks in the three evaluations has been filed at Page No.11 of typed set of papers. In view of the same, the petitioner is seeking for the valuation of the papers by an independent evaluator and also to compute the marks by taking the average of the 1^st and 2^nd valuation alone into consideration.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the Pondicherry University was governed by a regulation which provided that where there is a variation of more than 15 marks between the 1^st and 2^nd valuation, the paper will be sent for 3^rd valuation and the final marks shall be the average of the 3^rd valuation and the nearest among the 1^st and 2^nd valuation. The learned counsel further submitted that this was the position that was prevailing from the year 2010 onwards. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the 2019 amendment that was brought forth by the academic counsel of the Pondicherry University, wherein the regulation was amended to the effect that from April – May session onwards, the University will follow the system of double valuation and there will be no revaluation and there will be only re-totalling. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Circular No.50 dated 14.03.2019 which also reiterated the same amendment that was brought forth by the academic counsel. The learned counsel on relying upon the same submitted that the answer scripts of the petitioner must also be dealt with in accordance with

¶16

2/6

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

circular No.50 dated 14.03.2019. The learned counsel submitted that instead of following this circular, the respondents had proceeded to make a 3^rd valuation in the present case, which is opposed to the amended regulations.

¶19

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:9. With regards to the statements in Paragraph 3, these respondents vehemently deny the allegation that despite the good performance, the petitioner was declared as failed in Ophtahalmology Paper theory component examination thrice i.e in the month of November 2017 and November 2018. In this regard, it is submitted that the Respondent University has an evolved process of evaluation that ensures the integrity and fairness of the evaluation process. The Academic Council of the Respondent University vide Resolution No.2010.65.48, dated 22.09.2010 had taken a decision that each theory answer script would be subject to evaluation by two independent evaluators and the average marks of the two would be taken to the final marks of the concerned theory paper. In the event that there is variation of more than 15 marks between the first and second valuation, the concerned answer script shall be sent for third valuation. The final marks shall be the average of third valuation and the nearest among the first and second valuation. The procedure decided in the aforesaid resolution has been duly complied with by the Respondent University in evaluating the answer scripts of all the medical students including that of the petitioner. While it is unfortunate that the petitioner has been declared failed in the Ophthalmology Paper theory component examination, the petitioner cannot use her individual performance as the basis to cast insinuation on the evaluation procedure being followed by the Respondent University. These Respondents do not have any comment on the rest of the statements but would like to point out that with regard to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.7601 of 2019 dated 19.06.2019, the petitioner has admitted that the Respondent University has duly complied with the said orders.

¶20

11.With regard to the averments in Paragraph No.5, it is submitted that the Academic Council of the Respondent University had made changes to the process of evaluation the same was communicated to the

¶21

3/6

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

students by the 2^nd respondent vide [Circular No.50] with File No.PU/Exam/M-E5/2019 dated 14.03.2019. Further, the respondents deny that the award of the final marks in General Medicine and General Surgery subjects but has conveniently chosen to ignore obstetrics and Gynaecology, in which subject as well the petitioner has been declared as failed owing to inadequate marks. Besides, the petitioner has also not raised any concerns with the marks obtained in Pediatrics, in which subject the petitioner has been declared passed. Therefore, there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that there was any anomaly in the evaluation procedure of the Respondent University.

¶24

With regard to averments in Paragraph No.12, it is strongly denied that referring the matter to the third evaluator and computing the average between the 1^st and 3^rd valuation marks alone is not at all provided in the regulations. On the contrary, as already stated supra at Para 9, the regulations of the Respondent university prescribe that when an answer script is sent for 3^rd valuation and the nearest among the first and second valuation. Therefore, in the instant case, the 2^nd respondent has strictly complied with the regulations framed in this regard. It is further submitted that instances of disparities in marks by different evaluators had been considered by a division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of C.Jagadiswaran Vs.Vice Chancellor, the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University MANU/TN/0464/2014, wherein at Para 20 it has been observed that even in the event of disparities in valuation by different examiners, there can be no revaluation in the absence of a legal provision, which is as follows :-

¶25

In Sahiti, what was in issue before the Supreme Court was whether the action of the Vice-Chancellor of Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences in ordering reverification/ revaluation/re-examination of answer scripts of 436 students, was proper or not. It is, in that context, the Supreme Court in Paragraph 32 held that revaluation even in the absence of specific provision ...”.

¶26

In the instant case, the Respondent University does not have any provision for revaluation or any provision for evaluation of answer scripts by an independent expert. Therefore, the petitioner has no basis to request this Hon'ble Court to refer the answer scripts to an independent evaluator. Further,

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

4/6

¶29

there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that the average of the 1^st and 2^nd valuation marks alone to be taken into consideration when the regulations of the Respondent University stipulate otherwise. The regulations of the Respondent University are same for all medical students and no exception can be made to the petitioner herein.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents apart from reiterating the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any revaluation of the papers and at the best, the papers in which the petitioner has failed can only be subjected to re-totalling in accordance with regulation 50 dated 14.03.2019. The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the answer scripts are kept ready for the petitioner to receive the same.

¶31

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the papers in which the petitioner is said to have failed, ought not to have been subjected to a 3^rd valuation and the final marks that was awarded was not in line with the existing regulations. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been clearly stated at Para No.11 that Circular No.50 dated 14.03.2019 has come into effect pursuant to the changes made in the rules and regulations by the academic counsel of the Pondichery University. If that be so, the papers in which the petitioner is said to have failed ought not to have been valued in accordance with the earlier regulation of the year 2010 which contemplated a 3^rd valuation and the final marks was taken to be the average of the 3^rd valuation and the nearest among the 1^st and 2^nd valuation.

¶33

In view of the Specific stand taken by the respondents and in view of the fact that circular No.50, dated 14.03.2019 has come into force, there shall be a direction to the respondents to value the papers in which the petitioner is declared to have failed, in accordance with Circular No.50 dated 14.03.2019. This process shall be completed within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

5/6

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶37

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rka
1. The Pondicherry University,
Rep. By its Registrar,
R.V.Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry.
2. The Controller of Examination,
Pondicherry University,
R.V.Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry – 605 014.
3. The Assistant Registrar (Medical)
Public Information Officer,
Medical Section, Examination Wing,
Pondicherry University,
Examination Wing,
R.V.Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry 605 014.
WP No.10560 of 2020
gj(co)
aa28/10/2020

¶38

6/6

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Yazhini v. The Pondicherry University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Yazhini v. The Pondicherry University

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

Omr Developers Priovate Limited Vs The Chairman

Priyarshini Vs The Tahsildar

P.Karthikeyan Vs Union of India

Rajendran, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.E.I.D.Parry(India)Ltd Vs TamilNadu Electricity Generation

K.Saraswathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu