Dismissed

Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. M.Venkata Vishnu Vardhan

Telangana HC5 Feb 2016WA/33/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was filed by the University against an order granting grace marks to a respondent who failed a subject due to a clerical error in averaging evaluation marks. The Court found the total was incorrect but held the single judge's interpretation was not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 10.08.2015 in W.P.No.13154 of 2014 was upheld.

Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

W.A.No.33 OF 2016

¶3

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada is the appellant.

¶5

The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.08.2015 in W.P.No.13154 of 2014.

¶6

Heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner.

¶7

The 1^st respondent filed W.P.No.13154 of 2014 for Mandamus declaring that petitioner has passed in all the subjects in the final year MBBS examination held in February, 2014 as per Regulation 11.3.8 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education by granting 5 grace marks as per Regulation 11.3.9 (i) and declare the final year result of 1^st respondent.

¶8

After hearing the learned Additional Advocate General for considerable time and examining the applicable regulations, it transpires that admittedly an error in averaging the marks of petitioner for surgery 1A resulted in treating the 1^st respondent as failed. The Additional Advocate General states that there is mistake in calculating the marks obtained by the 1^st respondent for surgery 1A. The 1^st respondent in surgery 1A secured 148 marks out of 300 marks. The minimum required marks are 150. In surgery 1A, the answer sheet of 1^st respondent was valued three times. The marks obtained in these valuations are – 1^st valuation = 22, 2^nd valuation = 15 and 3^rd valuation=18.

¶9

The appellant, for the purpose of arriving at the marks secured by the 1^st respondent in surgery 1A, has taken the marks obtained by the 1^st respondent in 2^nd and 3^rd valuations, instead of taking the average of

¶10

two valuations.

¶11

The appellant could not and did not satisfy us that the average of 2^nd and 3^rd valuations is correct. If the average of valuations 1 and 3 is taken, the 1^st respondent secures 20 marks and total marks in surgery paper will be 151 out of 300 marks. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that the mistake has happened due to taking the marks obtained in valuations 2 and 3. Once it is declared that the totalling of surgery marks suffers from irregularity, we are satisfied that there is no dispute that the 1^st respondent is entitled for grace marks in medicine paper under Regulation 11.3.9. Having spent sufficient time on the appeal and after taking note of the fair submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, we are satisfied that the writ appeal can be disposed by this order.

¶12

“The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on interpretation of any of the Regulations, while disposing of the writ petition, shall not be treated as precedent and are confined to this writ petition due to peculiar facts and circumstances of this case”.

¶13

With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶15

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶16

S.V.BHATT, J

¶17

Date:05.02.2016 Lrkm

Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. M.Venkata Vishnu Vardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. M.Venkata Vishnu Vardhan

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

The Khadher Memorial Education Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

T.Jeevan Reddy s/o. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

A.P.Agricultural Officer Association, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

P. Srikanth, Vs State of Telangana

Sri Sherfuddin Vs Si of Police Kamareddy