Karnataka HC quashes RGUHS ordinance on answer scripts valuation of MBBS course
Advertisement
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a norm of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) which was governing the valuation of answer scripts of MBBS students. With this, the bench has directed the varsity to apply the provisions governing the valuation of postgraduate courses to undergraduate courses.
This came after a group of petitioners approached the High court submitting that the rule dictated by the University under the "Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme)" notified on 13.10.2020 was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Allowing the petition, the high court has set aside the same ordinance issued by the university and ordered RGUHS authorities to identify all the cases where there had been a difference of 15% or more in the four valuations of answer scripts and to send them for the fifth valuation. The court also found that the opinion of an expert body like the Advisory Council should have been taken by the authorities before issuing the ordinance.
The court noted, "The problem of valuation and revaluation seems to be raising its ugly head again and again, in spite of several decisions."
The petitioners submitted that though there is no specific prescription of notifying the Ordinance in the Gazette, the general rule requiring notification of Ordinances, legislations, amendments, etc., should be made applicable to Ordinances issued by the RGUHS. It was further submitted that they were admitted to the MBBS Courses during the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21. Hence, any new Ordinance brought into operation subsequent to the admissions, could not be held operational as against the said students as they were admitted prior to the new Ordinance.
The court observed that the University had adopted the system of valuation by four examiners in respect of practical examinations carrying 20% of the total marks for undergraduates but, provided for evaluation only by two examiners for the Theory papers, which was in contravention to the Regulations of the MCI. Therefore, writ petitions were allowed while quashing the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019. A mandamus was issued to the University to cause valuation for all Theory papers of the UG students, by a set of four examiners, in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the MCI Regulations, 1997.
After this, the University notified on 13.10.2020 an Ordinance stating, " All answer scripts of UG course shall be subjected to Digital Valuation by four evaluators in which 50% of them by Internal Examiners and 50% by External Examiners of different universities other than RGUHS and preferably by evaluators from outside the State as prescribed by MCI. It further provided that the average of the total marks awarded by the four evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for computation of the results. It specifically provided that the marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained." It was this provision that there would be no further valuation, which the petitioners questioned.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there could not be any amendment brought to such Ordinance. It was submitted that in terms of Section 35(3)(b) of The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, the Syndicate of the University was required to consult the Academic Council while making an Ordinance in matters relating to conduct or setting of standards of examination.
Appearing for the university, learned Counsel Sri N K Ramesh contended the submission of the petitioner stating that although the notification dated 13.10.2020, said it was an amendment to the Ordinance, it should be read as the promulgation of Ordinance in terms of Section 35(1) of RGUHS Act, 1994. It was further submitted that when the impugned notification was issued, the Vice-Chancellor had exercised the special powers under Section 13(2), exercising the powers conferred on the Advisory Council.
The learned Counsel for the University submitted that it had been a well-settled position of law that unless the Regulations specifically provided for revaluation of an answer script, no Court could direct revaluation of the answer script.
The Counsel for the university further added, that the Vice-Chancellor submitted a proposal to the Syndicate and the Syndicate considered the proposal and resolved to approve promulgation of the impugned Ordinance. Hence, the due procedure had been followed by the university.
After considering the submissions of the university and the petitioners, the court observed,
" the explanation sought to be offered by the respondent-University, cannot cure the defect in the matter of issuance of an Ordinance. Even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University is accepted that the act of the Syndicate in issuing the notification is not an amendment to the Ordinance, but it is a promulgation of a new Ordinance, there is nothing in the preamble of the notification which would suggest that in the matter of consultation with the Academic Council as required under Section 35(3)(b), the Vice-Chancellor has exercised the power conferred on the Academic Council by invoking the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2)."
The court stated, "The provision for having a third valuation in cases of Double Valuation Method and having a fifth valuation in cases of Four Valuation Method is a well thought of safety measure."
It further added that the very fact that there is a difference of more than 15% indicated erratic valuation and therefore, the need for sending such answer scripts for another evaluation has a moderating effect and provided solace to students who were awarded marks which had a huge gulf.
The court found the contention of the learned counsel for the University that there was nothing in the said Regulations compelling the University to have a fifth valuation, was not justified.
The bench comprising Justice R. Devdas stated,
while framing policies, opinion of the experts should be sought and the grievance of the student community should also be heard. A policy having broad vision would be least susceptible to challenge. Therefore, this Court takes this opportunity to once again remind the respondent-University and the National Medical Commission to ponder over the observations and come up with a policy that would be in the best interest of medical education.
Allowing the writ petition, the court ordered the following:
1. The "Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS- 3 Scheme)" notified on 13.10.2020, had been quashed and set aside.
2. The respondent-RGUHS was directed to apply the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the University, to identify all the cases where there was a difference of 15% or more in the four valuations and to send them for the fifth valuation. The exercise should be restricted to failed students only.
3. Authorities should declare the results applying the provisions governing PG students of the University, after the fifth valuation and should proceed to issue marks card accordingly.
4. The entire exercise should be completed well before the commencement of next year's examinations which was tentatively scheduled to commence during the first week of March 2021.
To view the order, click on the link below:
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.