Dismissed

Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2023CW/857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the discrepancy between his re-evaluation marks (47) and the marks awarded on the mark sheet (44). The court held that under the applicable ordinance, the average of the closest two awards was legally mandatory. No error was found, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition and the stay application were dismissed with no error found in the awarded marks.

Hukma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/002534]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 857/2023

¶4

Hukma Ram S/o Shri Bhera Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o H.no. 213, Dudiya Bera, Pipar City, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Director, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Registrar, Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

The Principal/controller, Sunrise Institute Of Paramedical Sciences, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Bhavit Sharma, through VC

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

27/01/2023

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court raising a grievance that although he secured 47 marks in his re-evaluation which is evident from Page 31 of the present writ petition, but while issuing the mark sheet, he has been awarded only 44 marks.

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/002534]

[CW-857/2023]

Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Para Medical Council invited Court’s attention towards Ordinance No.157 – A (9)(1)(i) of the R.U.H.S. Ordinance and submitted that petitioner has been rightly awarded marks as his original marks were 41 and when his re-evaluation was carried out, he secured 70 marks making the difference between the two more than 20%, for which the copy was sent to third examiner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Ordinance No.157 – A (9)(1)(i) when the difference between marks is more than 20%, the answer book is required to be referred to a third examiner. The third examiner gave 47 marks. 4. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Ordinance, average of the closest two marks namely (41 and 47) was to be taken and hence, 44 marks have been awarded to the petitioner. 5. The provisions contained in ordinance No.157 – A (9)(1)(i) which is reproduced here under:-

¶24

“If the award of the second examiner (evaluator) is more than the award of the first examiner subject to a limit of 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, - the same shall be taken as the marks obtained on revaluation. In case the award of the second examiner (revaluator) exceeds the above limit of 20%, the answer book shall be referred to a third examiner and the average of the two closest awards shall be taken into account. If the three awards are uniformly spread, then the middle award shall be taken into account.”

¶25

In view of the above quoted provision, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the marks awarded to the petitioner.

¶26

The petition, therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(3 of 3) [CW-857/2023]

¶28

[2023/RJJD/002534]

¶29

The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶31

529-akansha/-

Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Leela Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Gayatri Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Mayur Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaiprakash Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ronak Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan