No additional MBBS paper evaluation if rules don't permit- Karnataka HC sets aside order against RGUHS
Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that answer scripts cannot be sent for a third round of evaluation if the rules of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) do not permit it, and set aside an earlier Single Bench order that had directed fresh assessment of MBBS papers by an additional examiner.
Granting relief to the university, Division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha observed, "It is relevant to note that the Ordinance governing the evaluation of the answer scripts expressly provides that "the marks awarded and the results so declared shall be final and under any circumstances further valuation shall not be entertained.", Thus the revaluation is impermissible."
Clarifying that it is not the court's duty to evolve a method for evaluating answer scripts, the bench stated, "Evaluation of the answer scripts is covered by a statutory prescription, and therefore, it is neither apposite nor permissible for the Court to issue directions regarding evaluation which run contrary to the statute."
The case concerns several first-year MBBS students who challenged their results and sought relief from the Court. They had asked for photocopies of their answer scripts, revaluation by another examiner, provision of key or model answers for descriptive questions, grace marks, and permission to continue attending second-year classes.
When the matter was raised before a Single Judge of the High Court, the bench had partly allowed their petitions. The court had directed the University’s Syndicate and Academic Council to reconsider the issue of providing key or model answers for descriptive questions, and the answer scripts of the petitioners to be sent to an additional (third) evaluator due to large differences in marks given by the first two examiners.
However, RGUHS challenged this direction before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench noted that the University had no objection to reconsidering the issue of providing model or key answers. However, it clarified that the earlier observations of the Single Judge should not be treated as binding directions and said that the University is free to take its own decision on this issue without being influenced by the earlier remarks.
The Court said it is for academic experts and not for judges to decide whether key words or model answers are necessary for evaluating descriptive questions.
"In our view, it would not be apposite for this Court to examine as to how answers to questions in a particular subject are required to be evaluated. The question whether ‘key phrases’ or ‘key terms’ would assist in evaluating the answers to subjective-type questions is clearly a matter which would need to be examined by the experts. The University’s contention is that answers to medical science questions are evaluated based on students' understanding and knowledge. Their knowledge cannot be evaluated on the anvil, whether they have used key phrases or terms in the language used to express their answers. This contention is not insubstantial. However, as stated above, it is not appropriate for this Court to examine the said issue, which must necessarily be left to the knowledge and wisdom of the experts,"
The Bench noted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) had earlier supported the idea of using keywords and phrases for evaluation, but later changed its stand, stating that subjective answers cannot be evaluated on the basis of key phrases or terms used in the answers.
Therefore, the main issue before the Division Bench was whether the answer scripts could be sent to a third examiner.
The Court stated that the manner in which the answer scripts are to be evaluated is covered by an "Ordinance / Notification Governing Central Assessment Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all Under Graduate Health Science Courses of the University." The Court emphasised that since the Ordinance does not provide for a third evaluation, the Court cannot create such a procedure.
"As is clear from the provisions of the Ordinance, the general valuation is to be conducted by the first eligible examiner, and the revaluation is to be conducted by the second eligible examiner. The highest of the marks awarded by the two evaluators is required to be considered as the final computation of the result. There is no statutory provision for further revaluation of the answer scripts or for referring the matter to a third evaluator. Since the statutory scheme of the Ordinance prescribes a particular method of evaluation, the evaluation of the answer scripts can be done only in the manner as provided and no other."
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, including Dr NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., the Bench reiterated that re-evaluation cannot be ordered unless the rules specifically allow it. The Supreme Court has also held that courts should not call for answer scripts and direct revaluation in the absence of a clear legal provision.
The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had ordered a third evaluation because of a wide gap between the marks given by the first and second evaluators.
However, the Division Bench observed,
"we are unable to accept that referring the answer scripts to a third valuer would, in any manner, mitigate this element of subjectivity in the evaluation of answer scripts. It is perhaps for this reason that the Ordinance provides that the highest of the marks awarded by the evaluators be considered as the result of the examination. Thus, the candidate is accorded the benefit of the best of two evaluations.
If the third evaluator’s assessment is lower than the marks awarded – that is, the highest marks of the two evaluators – then the final result as declared would have to be accepted. But if the third evaluator awards higher marks – that is higher than the marks awarded by the two evaluators – the question would arise as to which of the marks is required to be accepted. There is no provision to declare the results on the basis of the highest marks awarded by three evaluators. There is also no provision for averaging the marks awarded by evaluators for finalising the result. In this view, the direction to refer the answer scripts to the third evaluator is unsustainable."
Holding that courts cannot override statutory rules governing examinations, the High Court set aside the direction for the third evaluation. With this, the appeals filed by RGUHS were allowed.
To view the court order, click on the link below:
