Dismissed

Dr Monika Singh D/O Shri Suresh Yadav v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2018CW/19399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their declaration as 'Not Approved' in an MD Dermatology final examination, alleging marks miscalculation. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents limiting judicial interference in academic matters unless statutory rules are violated. Relying on the signed examiner roll list, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the university's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction to modify result or declare candidates approved.

Dr Monika Singh D/O Shri Suresh Yadav Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 19399/2018

¶3

Dr Monika Singh D/o Shri Suresh Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C 15 Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur Raj. (Roll No. 207438)

¶4

Dr. Kiran Poonia D/o Shri Subhash Chandra Poonia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vill. Poonia Ka Bass (Himmatpura), Post Devgaon (Nua), Via Doomra, Teh. Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu Raj. (Roll No. 207437)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its Registrar, Kumbha Marg Sector 18 Pratap Nagar, Jaipur Raj. 302033

¶8

Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Through Its Principal And Controller, Jln Marg Near Albert Hall Museum, Ram Niwas Garden, Jaipur Raj. 302004

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Jadaun for Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG Mr. M.A. Khan

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

13/11/2018

¶14

The respondent – Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur (for short, “respondent – RUHS”), declared the petitioners “Not Approved” in M.D. (Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy) Final Examination – 2018; hence, they have instituted the instant writ application praying for the following relief(s):

¶15

(2 of 10)

¶16

[CW-19399/2018]

¶17

“i. By issuing an writ of Mandamus the respondents may be directed to declare the correct result of the petitioners, by adding the marks secured by the petitioners in the Long case (Annexure-4). ii. By issuing an writ of Mandamus the respondents may be directed, the respondents may be directed to declare petitioners as approved candidate in MD (Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy) Final Examination – 2018.

¶18

iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the writ petitioners may also be passed.”

¶19

Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts, which need to be taken note of for appreciation of the controversy raised herein, are; that the petitioners having successfully completed MBBS Course, were admitted to SMS Medical College, Jaipur in M.D. (Skin V.D.), in the month of June, 2015, for they qualified the examination conducted by the National Board of Education, New Delhi. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that their performance during the three years course had been remarkable. It is further detailed out that there were four theory papers of 100 marks each totalling to 400 marks. The Practical Examination that was held on 15^th June, 2018, at SMS Medical College, Jaipur, consisted of Long Case (50 marks), 2 Short Cases (25 marks each), Spotters (50 marks) (5 marks for each item of 10 Units) and Grand Viva (50 marks). Thus, practical examination consists of 200 marks and the participating candidate was required to secure minimum 50%. The petitioners were declared successful in Theory Examination, but could not secure minimum passing marks in the Practical Examination, and therefore, they were declared “Not Approved”.

¶20

(3 of 10)

¶21

[CW-19399/2018]

¶22

Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that in response to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “Act of 2005”); the respondent – RUHS informed the petitioners of the marks secured on 20^th July, 2018. For the petitioners were adjudged “Not Approved”, they addressed a joint representation for rectification of the result with reference to Practical Examination. Having received no response, second application under the Act of 2005, was instituted on 7^th August, 2018, seeking information of the marks obtained under each head of the Practical Examination, which was responded vide communication dated 10^th August, 2018, furnishing the details of marks obtained by the petitioners. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the marks of the petitioners for “Long Case” have not been included, which has resulted into their failure (Not Approved).

¶23

Referring to the Roll List of candidates for M.D./M.S./M.SC. (MED.)/M.CH. Examination in DVL held on 15^th June, 2018, it is contended that the petitioners were indicated to have secured 23 marks (Monika Singh) and 18 marks (Kiran Poonia) out of 50 marks in ‘ Oral ’ whereas for ‘ Clinical and Practical ’, Monika Singh secured 67 marks and Kiran Poonia was awarded 74 marks. The petitioners were declared “ Not Approved ” for having failed to secure minimum in ‘ Clinical and Practical ’ out of 150 marks so also in ‘ Oral ’ out of 50 marks.

¶24

According to learned Senior Counsel, the respondent – RUHS, despite of the original record available with SMS Medical College, and copies which have been made available to the petitioners under the Act of 2005, for Practical Examination with

¶25

(4 of 10)

¶26

[CW-19399/2018]

¶27

reference to Long Case, Semi Long Case-I, Semi Long Case-II, Spotters and Grand Viva; has not carried out necessary ‘rectification’ to include the marks of ‘ Long Case ’ and ‘ Oral ’, in case of the petitioners, which would make it evident that the petitioners have been successful in the Practical Examination. Further, the respondent – SMS Medical College, Jaipur, has not disputed the original record of Practical Examination of the petitioners. Moreover, the contents of the Additional Affidavit of the respondent number 2 (SMS Medical College), confirms the plea and stand of the petitioners.

¶28

It is urged that the plea of “suspicion” and/or “manipulation”, raised in the backdrop of the communication dated 27^th June, 2018 (Annexure-R/1/5), enclosed with the counter affidavit of the respondent – RUHS; is absolutely misconceived and misleading for what has been stated by the respondent – SMS Medical College, Jaipur, under paragraph 7 of its Additional Affidavit.

¶29

In response to notice on the writ application, the respondent – RUHS, has filed its counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners for they were declared “Not Approved” by all the four examiners, who were entrusted with the examination held in June, 2018, involved herein.

¶30

Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel representing the respondent – RUHS, referring to the result of the Examination held on 15^th June, 2018 (Annexure-R/1/1(A), emphasized that out of four candidates including the petitioners, two were declared “Approved” and the petitioners were declared “Not Approved” by all the four examiners.

¶31

It is further pointed out that each candidate is to be assessed on the basis of required standard for Theory, Practical,

¶32

(5 of 10)

¶33

[CW-19399/2018]

¶34

Oral and Thesis. In case, a candidate fails to achieve the required standard, he is to be indicated as “Not Approved” in the ‘Remarks’ Column and the successful candidate would be indicated as “Approved”.

¶35

Referring to communication dated 27^th June, 2018 (Annexure-R/1/5), it is contended that Coordinator, Internal Examiner and Head of the Department, along with his colleague, Coordinator, Internal Examiner; in no uncertain terms stated that as per the Rules, the entire record of the ‘Practical Examination’ is transmitted to the University and no record is retained. Further, the entire record of the Examination involved herein, was transmitted to the respondent – RUHS. Thus, the information on the basis of so-called original record, furnished to the petitioners under the Act of 2005, with reference to score sheets disclosing marks of Practical Examination for ‘Long Case’, Semi Long Case-I, Semi Long Case-II, Spotters and Grand Viva, could not have been furnished. Be that as it may, the documents, which could not have been in existence; did raise a serious suspicion as to their correctness in disclosing of the marks as indicated therein.

¶36

Further, the details of marks awarded to the petitioners for “Grand Viva” does not tally with the marks awarded to the petitioners as would be evident from the mark-sheet of all the participating four candidates i.e. (Annexure-R/1/1(A), which bears signature of all the four Examiners. Hence, on a comprehensive assessment of the petitioners in the Examination held on 15^th June, 2018, they were indicated “Not Approved”. In support of his stand, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi & Ors.:

¶37

(6 of 10)

¶38

[CW-19399/2018]

¶39

(1991) 2 SCC 716 and Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan: (2009) 1 SCC 59.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

¶41

Indisputably, the petitioners have been declared “Not Approved” in the Examination held on 15^th June, 2018. The marksheet of four candidates including the petitioners has been placed on record by the respondent – RUHS as Annexure-R/1/1(A), which bears signature of all the four Examiners. The other two participating candidates, who too participated in the same Examination, have been declared “Approved”.

¶42

It appears that on a representation made by the petitioners, the Principal & Controller of Examination, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, inquired from the Coordinator, Internal Examiner and Head of the Department so also from his colleague, about the record, if any, of the Practical Examination. In response thereto, vide communication dated 27^th June, 2018 (Annexure-R/1/5), the Coordinator, Internal Examiner and Head of the Department along with his colleague, informed that the entire record of the Practical Examination has been transmitted to the respondent – RUHS, and any information in that regard could be obtained from the respondent – RUHS. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the contents of the communication dated 27^th June, 2018, which reads thus:

¶43

(7 of 10) [CW-19399/2018]

¶44

“fo"k;% peZ ,oa jfr jksx foHkkx dh ,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½ 2018 ijh{kk ¼lS)kfUrd ,oa izk;ksfxd½ ds ifj.kke ds lanHkZ esa rF;kRed fjiksVZA

¶45

lanHkZ%& vkidk i=kad 18867 fnukad 27-06-2018 ds 0dze esaA

¶46

egksn;]

¶47

mijksDr izkFkZuk i= ds lanHkZ esa ys[k gS fd peZ ,oa jfr jksx foHkkx dh ,eMh ¼Mhoh,y½ 2018 ijh{kk ¼lS)kfUrd ,oa izk;ksfxd½ fnukad 15-06-2018 dks vk;ksftr gqbZ FkhA mijksDr ijh{kk ,elhvkbZ ,oa vk;w,p,l ds fu;kekuqlkj vk;ksftr dh xbZ FkhA bldk lEiw.kZ ifj.kke 'khYM fyQkQs esa Controller of Examination ,oa jftLVªkj vk;w,p,l dks fnukad 18-06-2018 dks izsf"kr dj fn;k x;k FkkA fu;ekuqlkj foHkkx }kjk izk;ksfxd ijh{kk dk leLr fjdkWMZ fo’ofo|ky; dks izsf"kr djus ds i’pkr dksbZ fjdkWMZ vius ikl ugha j[kk tkrkA bl ijh{kk ls lacaf/kr lkjs fjdkMZ fo’ofo|ky; dks izsf"kr dj fn;s x, gSA

¶48

vr% bl ijh{kk ls lacaf/kr tkudkjh vc vk;w,p,l t;iqj ls gh izkIr dh tk ldrh gSA”

¶49

A glance of the communication, as extracted herein above, would reflect that no record of the Practical Examination was retained by the Coordinator, Internal Examiner and Head of the Department (Respondent No.2). In the face of the facts stated in the communication dated 27^th June, 2018 (supra), the information furnished to the petitioners along with the details of the marks of Practical Examination appears to be a stand contrary to record. Be that as it may, even the details of the marks of “Grand Viva” does not tally with the marks awarded to the petitioners in the marksheet that has been prepared for all the four candidates including the petitioners, who participated in the examination involved herein, held on 15^th June, 2018, which bears signatures of all the four examiners.

¶50

A glance of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent – SMS Medical College, Jaipur, would reflect that a

¶51

(8 of 10)

¶52

[CW-19399/2018]

¶53

candidate is required to reach the required standard in Theory, Practical, Oral and Thesis. Failure of the candidate to achieve the required standard was to be indicated as “Not Approved” in the ‘Remarks’ Column, and the one who achieved the required standard would be indicated as “Approved”. The petitioners, after due assessment in the examination process involved herein, have been indicated as “Not Approved” and the mark-sheet has been signed by all the four examiners.

¶54

In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra), the Apex Court of the land while dealing with the moderator’s mark-sheets tempered with to the advantage of certain students and enquiry conducted declining assistance of lawyers held that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was fair and just. Further, the application of principles of natural justice would depend upon particular facts and circumstances of the case. Dealing with the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution to itself evaluate the evidence and to interfere with the finding; the Apex Court of the land observed that such an exercise would amount to exceeding its supervisory jurisdiction.

¶55

In the case of Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra), on a survey of earlier opinions, the Supreme Court held that High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of educational institutions unless there is a clear violation of some statutory rules or legal principle. At this juncture, it would be profitable to take note of the contents of para 32 of the judgment (supra), which reads thus:

¶56

(9 of 10)

¶57

[CW-19399/2018]

¶58

“32. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad & another vs. Bagleshwar Prasad & another AIR 1966 SC 875 (vide para 12), Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & others vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & others AIR 1980 SC 2141 (vide para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & another AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations.”

¶59

Applying the principle deducible from the opinions of the Apex Court of the land, as extracted herein above, so also in view of the conspicuous facts of the case at hand wherein the scoresheets, which has been furnished to the petitioners in response to application under the Act of 2005, detailing out the details of marks, which totals to 26 in the case of petitioner – Kiran Poonia and 28 in the case of petitioner – Monika Singh, do not tally with the marks awarded and recorded in the roll list of candidates, which has been signed by all the four examiners on a comprehensive assessment, cannot be faulted. Further, the roll list of candidates for the examination involved herein, placed on

¶60

(10 of 10)

¶61

[CW-19399/2018]

¶62

record as aforesaid, in no unmistakable terms adjudged the petitioners as “Not Approved”.

¶63

For the reasons and discussions herein above and in view of the factual matrix so also materials available on record; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision arrived at by the respondent – RUHC, in adjudging the petitioners as “Not Approved”, as assessed by the examiners.

¶64

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶65

No costs.

¶66

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶67

SS/159

Dr Monika Singh D/O Shri Suresh Yadav v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Monika Singh D/O Shri Suresh Yadav v. Rajasthan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sardar Singh Bugaliya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Para Devi D/O Late Shri Ananda W/O Shri Tejaram Vs Babu Lal S/O Late Shri Sujaram

Shri Kishan Singh Dhanawat S/O Ramlal Vs General Manager Midway Motel

Smt Madhu Chordia Vs Suresh Chand Sharma and Ors.

Prahlad Das Son of Ram Chandra, Vs Gulab Shankar Son of Chogha Lal

Basanta Devi and Anr. Vs District Judge and Ors.