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.54894/2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
KUM. AISHWARYA MURUDI D/O HANUMESH MURADI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT MEGA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, M.C.C. ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577004 ... PETITIONER [By SRI R.S.RAVI, ADV.] AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 4TH ‘T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 2. J.J.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DAVANAGERE-577004 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO SEND THE ANSWER SCRIPT FOR THE 4TH EVALUATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought a direction to first Respondent/University to re-evaluate the answer script in Forensic Medicine for fourth time.
2. According to learned counsel for Petitioner, Petitioner joined M.B.B.S. course in the academic year 2015-16; that there were four subjects in the second year course, one of which was Forensic Medicine; that Respondent/University has, as per Annexure-A2, evaluated answer script of the Petitioner in the said subject thrice.
3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that marks awarded for the questions are not consistent with one another; that each Evaluator has given different marks for most of the questions. He submits that in the circumstances, Petitioner is entitled to fourth evaluation. Therefore, a direction is sought in that regard.
4. I have perused a copy of the marks report in respect of subject-Forensic Medicine as per Annexure- A2 and I find that there has been three evaluations of the answer scripts, having regard to the Regulations of the Respondent governing multiple evaluation which is in force from 15.06.2012. It is noted that procedure for multiple valuation is as under:
subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is > 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.
[ii] All the answer-scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between FOUR valuations is > 15%, shall be referred to FIFTH examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.
[iii] The average of BEST OF TWO OUT OF THREE VALAUTION marks or the average of BEST OF FOUR OUT OF FIVE VALUATION MARKS as the case may be shall be considered for the final computation of the results.
[iv] The marks awarded and the results declared after considering this notification shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained.”
5. Petitioner has had the benefit of the said procedure, in as much as, there have been three evaluations of the answer scripts as there was a difference of more than 15% between first and second evaluation. Thereafter, best of two out of three Evaluators’ marks are considered to arrive at an average marks. Fourth and Fifth evaluation is meant only for post graduate courses and not for M.B.B.S. course which is an undergraduate course. In the circumstances, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot direct Respondent/University to conduct fourth evaluation of the answer scripts de hors aforesaid Regulations or contrary to the said Rules.
In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-