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.53595 OF 2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
Miss Harsha Kumar Chekuri D/o C. Kumar Naidu, Aged about 21 years, No.83, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Kattariguppe Main Road, Srinivasanagar, BSK III Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085.
(By Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate for Sri. Venugopal C.N., 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 Microbiology paper I having Question Paper Code 1083 and Microbiology paper II having Question Paper Code 1084, nothwithstanding the awarding of marks as per Annexure – ‘B’ 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 Microbiology paper I having Question Paper Code 1083 and Microbiology paper II having Question Paper Code 1084, are concerned in accordance with law. A copy of the marks report of that papers are produced at Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Annexures – ‘C’ and ‘D’ that Microbiology paper I and Microbiology paper II answered by the petitioner has been evaluated by three evaluators for a total of 75 marks each whereas, the said papers were set for 100 marks each. He would submit that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in evaluation of the said answer scripts of the petitioner. As a result, injustice has been caused to her as in the mind of the evaluators the papers have been evaluated and marks have been allotted for a total of 75 marks and not for 100 marks. In the circumstances, he has sought for quashing of Annexures – ‘C’ and ‘D’ marks report and for re-evaluation of the said answer scripts.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that on a reading of Annexures – ‘C’ and ‘D’ marks report, it is apparent that the marks have been awarded for a total of 75 marks, but in fact the said papers were set for 100 marks each. In the circumstances, he submits that an appropriate order may be made in that regard.
5. On a bare perusal of Annexures – ‘C’ and ‘D’, it would reveal that all the three evaluators have awarded marks out of 75, whereas the said papers were set for 100 marks each. 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 patent misconception in the evaluation of her answer scripts pertaining to Microbiology paper I and Microbiology Paper II. Therefore, Annexures – ‘C’ and ‘D’ marks report pertaining to the petitioner is quashed. The respondent University is directed to evaluate afresh, the answer scripts of the petitioner pertaining to Microbiology paper-I and Microbiology paper II in accordance with law.
6. In the circumstances, the respondent – University is directed to expedite fresh evaluation of the answer scripts so as to ensure that the result of fresh evaluation is made known to the petitioner well in advance.
7. At this stage, petitioner’s Counsel submits that petitioner may be permitted to take up the III year examination, which is to commence from 14.12.2017, which would be by paying the requisite examination fee and subject to the result of fresh evaluation of Microbiology paper I and Microbiology paper II of I year and fulfilling all conditions of eligibility.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent – University submits that the petitioner may be permitted to do so and the same would be subject to fresh evaluation of the answer scripts and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to take those examinations.
9. In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to appear in the examination of III year MBBS Course, if she is otherwise eligible, subject to the result of fresh evaluation of Microbiology paper I and Microbiology paper II.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE ca