AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner appeared for M.D. (Obst, & Gynace ) Examination of the Bombay University in June ''987. The result of this examination was declared in Sept. 1987. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful.
As per rules framed for assessment of theory papers. Practical orals (inter alia ) at the M.D. Examination by the University of Bombay a points systems has been laid down. Under the points system-
Point O is equivalent Very poor " 1 " " " Poor " 2 " " " Below Average " 3 " " " Average " 4 " " " Good " 5 " " " Very good " 6 " " " Out standing
Rules as originally framed provided that the above '' '' Points Scale'' should strictly adhered to and points in fractions should not be assigned.
Under the rules, for the purpose of passing (A) Theory papers as a whole constitute a sub-head: (B) Practical from an independent head of passing. The Long Cases/Experiments will from a sub-head. , while Short case experiments will constitute another sub-head: and (C) Orals constitute a separate head of passing. In order to pass the examination the candidate must obtain in each of the heads or passing an average of minimum, "3: points in the points scale. However, in order to pass in each head , the candidate is also rewired to obtain an average of minimum ''2'' points in each of the recognized sub-heads. In other words for passing in theory, in each theory paper the candidate must obtain a minimum of ''2 points while his average of all theory papers taken together should be a minimum of (3) points The Rules further provides. " Since a minimum eligibility grade is prescribed for each sub-head and since every candidates is required to pass each head independently, no condensation or gracing or moderation shall be done at the level of sub-heads. However for the purpose of computing as average of minimum 3 points at the level of each major head of passing: viz (A) Theory (B) Practical (C) Orals, point secured by the candidates from 2,5,to 2,9 in the prescribed points scale on the basis of the first decimal point shall be deemed as 3 points in the prescribed points scale. ( it Alice''s mine herein underlined ) . The average grade obtained by the candidates in each of the sub-head shall be worked out to the first decimal place......"
The provision in the above rule that the points secured by candidates from 2,5 to 2.9 on the basis of the first decimal points shall be deemed to be 3 points for the purposes of passing, is the result pf directions given by a learned single judge of this court in a pervious writ petition. It seems that the new points system for evaluation of candidates was challenged by the Maharashtra Association of Residents Doctors and others before this Court in Writ Petn. No. 2180 of 1986. At the inter in stage, pursuant to the directions given by a learned single Judge of this Court by this Order dt. 19th Sept. 1986 the Academic Counsel of the University of Bombay held a meeting on 26th Sep. 1986 in which the new system framed by them was modified. Special instructions were given to the examiners that while considering the requirement of securing an average of 3 points in each major head., they should take points 2.5 to 2.9 as 3 points. Because of this relaxation , in the October 1986 Examination 70 more candidates were declared successful brining the percentage of successful candidates to 54%.
5.This petition along with some other writ petitions was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Dharmadhikari and sugla JJ. By judgment and other dt. 13th Oct. 1986 delivered by the division Bench the system of evaluation framed by the University was upheld and the rule was discharged. The Division Bench examined the system of awarding points. Four examiners independently assess each candidate in each sub-head. The points awarded by them are averaged up to first decimal point., to determine the points secured by a candidate under each sub-head. The division Bench in para 13 of the Judgment , inter alia, referred to the averaging of points in the first instance., up to the first decimal for each head of passing as well as averaging done up to the first decimal for each sub-head. Taking into account the interlocutory direction it approved of averaging done up to the first decimal point. It said that the averaging done, apart from being fully justified , was also correct and they failed to appreciate how the averaging done at two stages was capable of causing prejudice to the candidates.
6 . The petitioner in the present case secured under the points system, under the head of Theory the following points:
Paper I ... 2.0 Paper II ... 2.5 Paper III ... 2.3 Paper IV ... 3.0 Average ... 2.4
Since his average was below 2.5 he was declared as unsuccessful .
The petitioner contends that the averaging done up to the first decimal point has caused him injustice because if the averaging was done up to 2 2 decimal points his average would have been not 2.4 but 2.45. He summits that under the rule of mathematics 4.5 should be rounded off to 50 to get the correct first decimal point. If so, the petitioner passes the examination. This argument has to be examined in the context of rules which have been framed by the Bombay University for minimum grades required for passing performance, 2.points indicate that the performance is below average. In view of the directions given by this court the University has made a concession by considering candidates who have secured between 2.5 and 2.9 average points also as candidates securing the equivalent of 3 points. This presumably is by applying the principle of rounding off the last decimal point to its nearest point. As per the Court''s directions 5 to 9 are upgraded to 1.
This rounding off is confined only to the points 2.5 to 2.9 while averaging the points for each head: and this too because the Court so directed. Moreover, the rules clearly provided that the points will be averaged only up to the first decimal point and no further. The petitioner summits that the points should be considered up to two decimal points should be upgrade . According to the petitioner, this is the only way in which correct points unto first decimal can arrived at .
This argument must be rejected. The University has laid a certain method of evaluation. The points system, by its very nature, is not amended to fractionalization. In fact, it is introduced to avoid marginal differences in gradation which the system of awarding marks up to 100 involves. Hence points are averaged only up to onr decimal point. In order to canfer some benefit on students and at the instance of the learned single Judge of this court , the University modified the points system to raise average points 2.5 to 2.9 to points 3. For passing each head of examination . If the first decimal point has to be worked out with reference to the second decimal point, also. As suggested by the petitioner, the second decimal point in turn will have to be correctly worked out with reference to the fourth decimal point and so on. Thus, a candidates who gets for examples 2.449 points (assuming that one works out decimals up to 3rd fraction) will as a first step get 2.45 points by upgrading .009 to o1.. then .o5 will be upgraded to .1 ,So that instead of 2.45 , the points . It would unnecessary complicate evaluation of theory papers, practical and orals. In fact, it would defeat the very purpose of a points scale, which is to avoid small differences in gradations.
Looked at from purely mathematical point of view 2.45 or 2.449 , for that matter is less then 2.5. In the absence of any rules 2.45 cannot be equated with 2,5 From the practical point of view or assessing candidates in a reasonable manner, the University cannot be compelled to make a mockery of the points system by compelling calculations of points in fractions involving several decimal points.
The petitioner contend that the method of averaging up to the first decimal point is not very accurate. In the first place, the averaging is done at two stages. at the first stage, under each of the sub-heads, the examiners independently give marks to candidates which marks are averages for each paper. The next stage of averaging is of points for each sub-head to determine the average points obtained by a candidate under each head. Mr. Kerkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in this process of dual average, a point up to .05 may get " last somewhere". Hence a distinction should not be made between a candidate who gets 2.45 and a candidate who gets 2.5.
This argument proceeds on the basis that points can be award in the points systems evolved by the University with the accuracy of 2 or 3 decimal fractions. It proceeds under a total misunderstanding of the points system which prescribes a points scale which is quite different from marks given to a candidate out of a total of 100 marks. These points are not callable of accurate mathematical sub-division at all. The maximum the system can be stretched to is one decimal point. This has been done. The Division Bench in its Judgments in Writ Petition No. 2180 of 1986 after examination this points system at considerable length has come to a conclusion that it is an extremely fair system of marking and has upheld the same.
It should also be remembered that the candidates who are so grated are those appearing in an examination which gives them a very high post-graduate qualification . As the Supreme court has observed in the case of Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs. Sunder Singh, , there should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such should not interfere with a system of assessing marks devised by the Academic Council of the University after much deliberation and care unless it feels that the system of evaluation is bad, unfair, , illegal or that the system is perverse or is a mala fide exercise of power. There is no such circumstance in the present case. The system of evaluation has already been approved by the Division Bench of this Court. The averaging of points up to the first decimal has also been upheld and the upgrading of points 2.5 to 2.9 up to 3 is also as per the directions of this Court.
In these circumstances, no intervention is called for.
Petition is dismissed ands the rule in discharged.
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.