IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.54185 OF 2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
Abhishek Kumar Anand S/o. Dr. Umesh Prasad Sing Aged about 22 years Residing at J.S.S. Medical College Hostel B.M.Road, S.S.Nagar, Mysore – 560 015.
(By Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate) AND:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041. Represented by its Registrar.
(By Sri. N.K. Ramesh, Advocate) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India praying to direct the respondent to carry out the re-evaluation of the answer scripts pertaining to the Community Medicine I having Question Paper Code 1063 and Community Medicine II having Question Paper Code 1064, notwithstanding awarding of marks as per Annex-B and B1 and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Though this writ petition is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent for fresh evaluation of the answer scripts pertaining to Community Medicine - I having Question Paper Code 1063 and Community Medicine - II having Question Paper Code 1064 are concerned in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his relief only to the paper Community Medicine - I. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure-C, which is the statement of marks for the paper Community Medicine - I. He submits that in respect of question No.7, the first evaluator has marked as “NR” i.e., Not responded. The second evaluator has awarded 3 marks. He states that the inconsistency in the evaluation of question No.7 is glaring and patent and therefore, respondent – University may be directed to make a fresh evaluation of question No.7, in view of the first evaluator’s remarks the said question is concerned.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent – University very fairly submits that if this Court is to direct the same, then the said direction would be complied with.
5. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the first evaluator has noted as against question No.7 “NR” (Not responded) and not awarded any marks, which a patent error, while the second evaluator has awarded 3 marks for the very same question, it is just and necessary that question No.7 be re-evaluated and the statement of marks pertaining to Community Medicine - I be re-computed and a fresh marks sheet be issued to the petitioner.
With aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca