IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.33428 OF 2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
Dr.Karan V.N Aged about 31 years, S/o Vishwanath.V, “Kanchanjaunga”, NV Layout, Vittal Nagar, Kalburgi – 585 103.
(By Ms.Anjana C.H, Advocate) AND:
... Petitioner 1. The Registrar (Evaluation) Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041.
2. Khazabande Nawaz Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalburgi – 585 103. Represented by its Principal.
... Respondents (By Sri.N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R1; Notice not ordered in respect of R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent No.1 to prepare and issue the key answers or answer modules in respect of the answer scripts of the petitioners to the four evaluators as per the RGUHS Regulations and direct the respondent No.1 to evaluate the answer scripts of the Theory Papers, through the said examiners based on the said key answers or answer modules and declare the results and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to prepare and issue the key answers or answer modules in respect of the answer scripts of the petitioners to the four evaluators as per the RGUHS Regulations, and direct the respondent No.1 to evaluate the answer scripts of the Theory Papers, through the said examiners based on the said key answers or answer modules and declare the results and other consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner claims that he has completed MBBS from Khazabande Nawaz Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalburgi and got Post Graduate seat in MD-General Medicine in respondent No.2-
College. The petitioner joined the course and completed three years course on 31.05.2018 and took up the examination upon completion of course. The petitioner’s results were announced wherein he was declared failed by three marks in the Theory Papers. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court contending that the vast difference in the marks granted by different evaluators in the same subject is only an indication of the subjectivities at work. Now the condition that a third or fifth evaluation coming in, in case of the difference between the marks granted in the first round of evaluation is 15% or more, and four highest marks be taken to calculate the average mark does not in any way eliminate subjective evaluation as the pool from which the average is calculated is big. The reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.58414/2017 and connected matters (DD 06.06.2018) as well as W.P.Nos.48194-48198/2018 and allied matters (DD 21.12.2018).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-University submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner does not survive for consideration, in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.58414/2017 and allied matters supra, where in paragraph 13, this Hon’ble Court has clearly observed that this order passed in some unusual circumstances, will not form any precedent for the cases of this nature and the same also will not affect the modification or taking of the new policy decision by the respondents-University in this regard for which the respondents-University had earlier submitted that they are in the process of finalizing. It is further submitted that writ appeal in the said matter is pending consideration before the Division Bench. It is further submitted that after fifth evaluation no further evaluation can be made, the petitioner is not eligible for further evaluation in view of fifth evaluators report being available on record relating to the re-evaluation is concerned.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. It is evident that fifth evaluation report is considered by the University in finally announcing the result in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.48194-48198/2018 and allied matters and the same being already concluded, no futher evaluation in perpetuity would be granted to the petitioner.
5. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-University, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.58414/2017 and allied matters is rendered only in particular circumstances and the same is declared has not to be taken as a precedent for the cases of same nature, more over the same being under consideration before the Division Bench, no reliance can be made to the said judgment by the petitioner to seek further re-evaluation or for the key answers or answer modules as such.
In view of the above cogent reasons, writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN