Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the records relating to the impugned letter of the respondent, dated 23.3.2009, and consequently, to direct the respondent to re-value the answer papers of the petitioner in the Community Medicine Paper I and II and to issue the revised mark statement for III M.B.B.S. Part-I medicine held in the month of February, 2009.
4. The petitioner has submitted that he had secured 67.3% and 67% in Part I and Part II of M.B.B.S Examinations, respectively. In two subjects in which the petitioner had passed in Part-III of the M.B.B.S. examinations, he had secured 65.3%. However, in the subject Community Medicine Papers-I and II, he had secured 58% and had fallen short by seven marks in the written examination to obtain a pass in the subject. It has been submitted that even though the petitioner had written the papers in Community Medicine, very well, he he had failed in the written examination by obtaining 113 marks, instead of the minimum passing mark of 120.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain deficiencies were found in the valuation of the papers in the examinations, recently held, for the M.B.B.S course. In fact, 150 students out of the total of 1400 students, who studied medicine in medical colleges had failed in one subject alone. This is an unusual thing that had happened and it requires thorough investigation and revamping of the evaluation system. 40 students out of 100 students, from Kilpauk Medical College, had failed in the Community Medicine examination and 20 students of the 105 students, who had appeared for the written examinations in the said subject had failed. In such circumstances, the Community Medicine Papers I and II of the petitioner need a re-evaluation. However, the system of re-evaluation which was available up to the year 2008 had been dispensed with, from the year 2009, by the impugned letter of the respondent, dated 23.3.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Standing Academic Board does not have the power to dispense with the re-evaluation system. It is only the Governing Council that is vested with such powers. Therefore, the impugned letter of the respondent, dated 23.3.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the valuation of the papers in Community Medicine has been done by experts in the field and that before the declaration of the results a Passing Board will scrutinise the results and recommend for their publication. There is nothing wrong in the system of valuation, as it exists. It has been further submitted that considering the various aspects involved in the system of re-evaluation, the Standing Academic Board, which is the Apex body, with regard to the academic matters, as per Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987, had resolved, in its 36th meeting held on 23.12.2008, to abolish the system of re-evaluation. Even if the system of re-evaluation is restored, the petitioner would not be eligible for re-evaluation of his papers in Community Medicine, as it is not a break year and the petitioner is entitled to carry over the failed subject in Part-I and obtain pass marks in the concerned papers, before appearing for the final year Part-II subjects. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by cancellation of re-evaluation system. Further, the proposal of the Standing Academic Board, dated 23.12.2008, for dispensing with the re-evaluation system, had been approved by the Governing Council, on 30.12.2008. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Governing Council that is empowered to take such decisions and not the Standing Academic Board, cannot be countenanced.
7. Further, Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987, provides that there shall be a Standing Academic Board of the University, which shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, the statutes and the ordinances, co-ordinate and exercise general supervision over the academic affairs of the University. Section 43(1) of the Act states that the Governing Council may, from time to time, make ordinances and amend or repeal the same, pursuant to the powers vested in the Governing Council, under Section 22 of the Act. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits.
8. The learned for the respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr.Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (Manu/SC/0055/1984), wherein it had been held as follows:
"Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case."
9. The learned counsel for the respondent had also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commn. (2004(6) SCC 714), wherein it had been held as follows:
"In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. Adopting such a course will give rise to practical problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided."
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate the claims made by him, with regard to the valuation of the papers in the subject Community Medicine of the M.B.B.S. course. Even though the system of re-evaluation had existed up to the year, 2008, the petitioner would not have been eligible to make a request for re-evaluation of the papers in Community Medicine, as it was not a break year and since the petitioner would be entitled to carry over the failed subject and to obtain pass marks in the said subject before appearing for the Part-II final year subjects. Further, the proposal to dispense with the re-evaluation system had been made by the Standing Academic Board and it had been approved by the Governing Council, which has the powers to take such decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs.
csh To The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Chennai 32