AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioners in W.P. No. 15351/2004, Fourteen in number and the petitioner in W.P. No. 15352/2004 are the final
year students of MS Ophthalmology at Madras Medical College, Chennai and Stanley Medical College, Chennai. They took their final year theory
examination between 17/03/2004 and 19/03/2004 and clinical examination between 26/04/2004 and 28/04/2004. While they were awaiting their
results, they were shocked to know on 29/05/2004 that the Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai,
the first respondent herein, had scheduled for re-examination of MS- Ophthalmology Clinical examination for the petitioners between 14/06/2004
and 16/06/2004.
On enquiry, they came to know that one of the students had allegedly used undue influence on the examiners to secure a pass in the clinical
examination, examination taken by all the petitioners have been cancelled. As the petitioners did not use any undue influence to pressurize the
examiners to secure a pass in the examination, the decision of the Controller of Examinations had resulted in hardship to all the innocent students
for the fault of one guilty student. Hence, they have questioned the order of the first respondent dated 27/05/2004 on the ground that it is arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard Mr. S. Silambannan learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. V. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. M. Vellaiswamy, learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent.
In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent viz., the Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University,
Chennai, it is stated that a complaint was received by the Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai
from one Dr. A. Priya, Professor of Ophthalmology, Stanley Medical College, Chennai, who was one of the Internal Examiners, about
malpractice/unfair means by which candidates were given pass in MS Ophthalmology clinical examination conducted at the Regional Institute of
Ophthalmology, Egmore, Chennai. According to the complaint, while the said Dr. A. Priya was an examiner for MS Ophthalmology from
26/04/2004 and 28/04/2004, she was pressurized to give pass mark to a particular candidate Dr. G. Vivekanandan (petitioner in W.P. No.
15352/2004 ) through the Director of Ophthalmology stating that she has received several phone calls from persons at the level of Vice-Chancellor
to give pass to the said Dr. G. Vivekanandan for which she could not resist. She further complained that the said candidate performed with lease
merit but she was forced to give pass mark to him as well as to some other candidates who did not deserve pass.
Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, while leading arguments would submit that as per the complaint, not only a
pass mark was given to the said Dr. Vivekanandan, but some other candidates were also given pass marks. As the said malpractice was in respect
of the examinations in MS Ophthalmology held from 26/04/2004 to 28/04/2004, the examinations of all the fifteen (15) candidates, who have
taken their examinations were cancelled. There is absolutely no illegality in the impugned order as the authorities empowered to conduct re-
examination to ensure fairness in the examination.
Mr. V. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 herein has also advanced his arguments on
the same line.
Both the Madras Medical College, Chennai and Stanley Medical College, Chennai, are affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical
University, Chennai. Being the University to affiliate medical colleges, it is obligated to conduct examinations and confer degrees. The primary
responsibility of the University is to ensure fairness in the conduct of examinations. Unless strict vigil prevails, fairness in the examination cannot be
achieved. In the absence of fairness, the merit would be a casuality. If the University allows merit to be a casuality, the very purpose of conduct of
examination would only be a farce procedure. The issue on this hand should be looked into based on the above.
To appreciate the nature of complaint, it is just and necessary to extract para 4 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent University which
reads as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that a complaint was received by the Controller of Examination of this University from Dr. A. Priya, Professor of
Ophthalmology, Stanley Medical College, Chennai, who was one of the Internal Examiners about malpractice/unfair means by which candidates
were given pass in MS Ophthalmology clinical examination conducted at the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Egmore, Chennai. It is submitted
that in the complaint Dr. A. Priya, has stated that while she was an examiner for MS Ophthalmology from 26/04/20004 to 28/04/2004 at the
Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Egmore, Chennai, pressure was given to her to give pass to a particular candidate Dr. G. Vivekanandan
through the Director of Ophthalmology stating that she (i.e.) Director of Ophthalmology) received several phone calls from persons who identified
themselves as Vice-Chancellor and Secretary to Chief Minister to give pass, to Dr. G. Vivekanandan and compelled her to give a pass, for which
she could not resist. She has further stated that the particular candidate performed with lease merit and because of this they were also forced to
give pass to some of the candidates who did not deserve pass
It is obvious from the said paragraph that the Examiner was pressurized to award pass mark to one Dr. G. Vivekanandan and due to the said
pressure, she was forced to give pass mark to the said Dr. G. Vivekanandan, who performed with lease merit. To cover up the same, some of the
candidates, who also did not deserve pass mark, were also awarded pass marks. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that as one
of the candidates indulged in undue influence, the entire examination should not be cancelled, cannot be accepted. Though the undue influence was
exercised on behalf of one candidate, in order to give him pass mark, some other candidates were also given pass mark. In the circumstances the
decision to hold fresh clinical examination, cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that if there is sufficient material
on which it can be demonstrated that the University was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled, then academic standards
require that the University''s appreciation of the problem must be respected.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, the
Supreme Court has held that "" the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation
to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day
working of educational institutions and departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the systems and
unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded"".
In Union Public Service Commission v. Jagannath Mishra, (2003) 9 SCC 237 , the Supreme Court has held that where an Expert body comes
to the conclusion on facts, the same should not be ordinarily interfered with by a Court of law.
In the matter of conduct of examination, assessment of marks and evaluation of relevant academic standards and practical attendance of such
qualification, it would always be better to accept the decision of the academic body to be fair, as the Court is not expert in the manner as to how
the examination is to be conducted and as to whether the candidates indulged in malpractice and whether such examination should be cancelled or
not.
On the facts of the case, out of 15 candidates, some of the candidates were given pass mark though they do not deserve for it. As it is not
possible for the authorities to conduct re-examination for one candidate, the only course to be adopted by the University is to cancel the
examination in toto and such decision taken by the academic body cannot be interfered solely on the ground that the examination of the candidates
who have indulged in influencing the examiners to give pass mark alone should be cancelled.
Mr. S. Silambannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of
India (UOI) and Others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, and contend that cancellation of the examination en bloc is wholly
unwarranted and unnecessary. In that case, the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted the written examination for filling up of 134 posts of
Constables. After conducting the examination, the contesting candidate in the said case was served with a communication that he was selected for
appointment and was also directed to undergo physical fitness test. While the candidates including the contesting respondent were awaiting for the
orders of appointment, they were informed that the entire selection was cancelled. The cancellation was challenged on the ground of
favouritism/nepotism on the part of the Officers in conducting the physical fitness test. Considering the fact that there was no serious grievance of
any malpractices in the process of the written examination and the Special Committee constituted did not appear to have condemned the selection
process relating to the conduct of written examination itself except noticing certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer sheets with
reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
... In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that wide-
spread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it
was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment
to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a
unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such
selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried
away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going rather
than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme
and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and
totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational
In that case as there was a positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others,
the Supreme Court held that the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of
cancelling the entire selection. However, on the facts of this case, though undue influence was exercised by one candidate, the complaint of Dr. A.
Priya was categorical that in order to give pass mark to the said candidate Mr. G. Vivekanandan, some other candidates were also awarded pass
mark. The said complaint does not refer to names of such candidates, who were also awarded pass marks except that of Dr. G. Vivekanandan.
On the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the above judgment of the Supreme Court is not of any help to the petitioners.
In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos.18221,18223 and 31261 of 2004 are
also dismissed.