IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.45055 OF 2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
Miss. Apeksha Kumar D/o Mr. K. Kumar, Aged about 22 years, Residing at No.4036, 18th Cross, 28th Cross, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 070. ... Petitioner (By Shri. Nishanth A.V, Advocate) AND:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 041, Represented by its Registrar. ... Respondent (By Shri. N.K. Ramesh, Standing Counsel) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the result of the Micro Biology as “Failed” vide annexure-E and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the evaluation in so far as Micro-biology paper I is concerned. A copy of the marks report of that paper is produced at Annexure ‘E’. Accordingly she has further sought for a further direction for fresh evaluation of the answer script pertaining to Micro-biology paper I in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Annexure ‘D’ that Micro-biology paper I answered by the petitioner has been evaluated by three evaluators for a total of 75 marks each whereas, the said paper was set for 100 marks. He would submit that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in the evaluation of the said answer script of the petitioner. As a result, prejudice has been caused to her as in the mind of the evaluators the paper has been evaluated for 75 marks and not for 100 marks. In the circumstances, he has sought for quashing of Annexure ‘D’ marks report and for re-evaluation of the said answer script.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on a reading of Annexure ‘D’ marks report it is apparent that the marks have been awarded for a total of 75 marks, but in fact the said paper was set for 100 marks. In the circumstances, he submits that an appropriate order may be made in that regard.
4. A bare perusal of Annexure ‘D’ would reveal that all the three evaluators have awarded marks out of 75, whereas the said paper was set for 100 marks. There is no dispute about that fact. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a case where discretion must be exercised in favour of the petitioner as there is a misconception with regard to the evaluation of her answer script pertaining to Micro- biology paper I. Therefore, Annexure ‘D’ marks report pertaining to the petitioner is quashed. The respondent University is directed to evaluate afresh, the answer script of the petitioner pertaining to Micro-biology paper-I in accordance with law.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 16.11.2017 is the last date for payment of examination fee for supplementary exams. In the circumstances, the respondent University is directed to expedite the fresh evaluation of the answer script, so as to ensure that the result of the fresh evaluation is made known to her well in advance i.e., on or before 14.11.2017.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl