Shashank Katara vs Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences And Others

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to give correct marks for Biochemistry subject Paper I Section A, question No.1, In Biochemistry subject Paper II Section A, question No.4 (c) and In Biochemistry subject Paper II Section B, question No.7(e) and declare fresh result of the petitioner’s First MBBS (New Scheme) Examination.

Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.”

As per the pleaded facts, the present petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery of American Medical College, Udaipur which is affiliated with the respondent no.1-University. The petitioner appeared in the First MBBS (Main Exam) conducted by respondent no.1, however, was declared fail in the same. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheets, and upon the same, as the petitioner was still dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, he applied for supplying him copy of his answer-sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI Act’). Subsequently, the petitioner was supplied with copies of his answer-sheets for – Biochemistry Subject Paper I Section A, Biochemistry Subject Paper II Section A and Biochemistry Subject Paper II Section B.

2.1 Thereafter, it came to the notice of the petitioner that there were certain irregularities in awarding the marks in certain questions, whereupon a representation dated 20.06.2022 was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no.2; reply thereto was received vide letter 26.07.2022 informing the petitioner that there was no change in the result of the petitioner. 2.2 As per the petitioner, due to the aforesaid irregularities, he was awarded 4½ marks less than what he deserved, and thus, his marks in Biochemistry Theoretical Subject came to be 99 instead of 103½ . Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

Learned counsel though the petitioner for the petitioner submitted that even gave correct answers in the examination, the respondent either did not award any marks or awarded lesser marks, which is clear from a bare perusal of the question No. 4(c) of Biochemistry Paper II, as even though it was attempted, but the same was not checked; further, in respect of Paper I as well, the petitioner was awarded only two marks instead of two and a half marks.

3.2. It was further submitted that vide the RTI case disposal report dated 22.07.2022, it cannot be said that the grievance of the petitioner has been dealt with appropriately, as the grievance committee disposed of the grievance only qua question 1 of Biochemistry Paper I, whereas the grievance of the petitioner was in respect of three questions.

3.3. It was also submitted that the respondent was not justified in not exercising the powers under Clause 11.2.9.(l) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, which provides that, “The grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a learner for clearing the examination as a whole but not for clearing a subject resulting in exemption”.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, while vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that for expeditious disposal of petitioner’s grievance, the matter was placed before the grievance committee on 05.07.2022, and the same was disposed of, as the marks had already been awarded in attempted questions and even opinion of Subject Expert in that regard was sought (RTI Case Disposal Report dated 22.07.2022); however, the marks scored by the petitioner remained unchanged.

4.1. It was also submitted that the record clearly indicates that the answer had been checked by the examiner, and thus, the petitioner had wrongly assumed that the concerned answers are correct in all aspects and he deserved full marks.

4.2. It was further submitted that the disposal of the petitioner’s grievance was disposed of in pursuance of the Guidelines fo obtaining certified copy of the answer-book under the RTI Act; the relevant Guideline No.12 is reproduced as hereunder:

“12. No complaint regarding the assessment of the answer book by the examiner shall be entertained.”

4.2.1. Thus, as per learned counsel, in the present case no irregularity or illegality has been committed by the respondents, and therefore, the present petition deserves dismissal.

4.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(a) Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8037/2022) decided on 04.11.2022 by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

(b) Yogendra v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors. (D.B. SAW No. 1188/2022 & other connected matters, decided on 11.11.2022) by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

This Court observes that the petitioner is a student of a College affiliated to the respondent no.1-University and is pursuing the Course of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery; but since he was declared failed in the first year MBBS main examination, the petitioner preferred a representation for re-evaluation of his paper; whereafter, the petitioner was still dissatisfied with the awarded marks even after the re-evaluation, and therefore, the present petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court.

This Court, at this juncture, considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (Supra), as hereunder:

"We are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for reevaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved."

This Court further observes that the petitioner has already been supplied with his answer-sheets under the RTI Act; not only that, but the representation made by the petitioner was also disposed of by the respondent in an appropriate manner, expeditiously; the matter was referred to the concerned Grievance Committee and even after the RTI Case Disposal Report of the Subject Expert, the marks awarded to the petitioner remained unchanged.

This Court is thus of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any irregularity or illegality in the present case, so as to call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.