Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24309 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nandu Yadav And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Upadhyay,Parvez Iqbal Ansari,Ramesh Upadhyaya(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief;
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-university to get the answer sheets evaluated by a separate examiner and the results of the petitioners be declared accordingly."
Heard Sri Parvez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the answer sheets of the petitioners, who appeared in the first semester examination of Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) Course, have not been properly evaluated by the respondent-university. There is glaring inconsistencies in awarding the marks to the students, which has caused great injustice to the petitioner-students, as such, answer sheets may be directed to be evaluated by a separate examiner and the results may also be declared accordingly.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no provision under the statute for re-evaluation of the answer sheets.
The objection so raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners himself in paragraph 17 of the writ petition has admitted that the university has now passed an order dated 29.6.2019 directing all the petitioners to appear in the back paper examination after depositing Rs. 600/- per paper towards examination fee for appearing in the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to the notification dated 7.11.2016 whereby Central Council of Medicine has framed Regulations i.e. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medcine) Amendment Regulations, 2016 has stated that the petitioners have been given options to appear in the second professional examination in the subjects in which they may have failed. He further submitted that the petitioners, for redressal of their grievances, may avail the facility under the aforesaid regulation as granted by the medical council to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to dispute the legal proposition as stated by the counsel for the respondents.
In view of the above, we do not see any justification to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019/vinay