Violation of NMC Guidelines: HC directs RGUHS to re-conduct Clinical Exams for 70 MBBS Students
Bengaluru: Taking note of the fact that Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) failed to conduct the practical examinations of MBBS course as per the regulations prescribed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) now National Medical Commission (NMC), the Karnataka High Court has asked the University to re-conduct practical/clinical examinations for more than 70 students.
The High Court took this decision while considering the pleas filed by the MBBS students who approached the Court after feeling aggrieved by the evaluation of the practical examination made by RGUHS.
High Court single judge bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum pointed out that it is a settled principle of law that erstwhile MCI, now National Medical Commission (NMC) has prescribed a set of four examiners for theory and practicals.
"It goes without saying that every examiner has to independently assess and assign marks which is lacking in the present batch of petitions. Therefore, it is unfortunate that respondent-University and examiners in gross violation of the findings recorded by co-ordinate Bench are again repeating the same mistakes," noted the HC bench.
Upholding the rule of four examiners, the bench further observed, "The emergence and evaluation of concept of four examiners was on account of arbitral assessment by the examiners in theory as well as practical exams. The concept of having four examiners gained attention in recent years as a means to enhance accuracy, fairness and reliability of assessments. One of the primary drivers behind the emergence of concept of four examiners is the desire to address subjectivity and bias inherent in single or dual examiner assessment. Recognizing the trend and also based on statistics, the MCI has come out with an Ordinance pressing for four examiners for practical and theory."
"This was brought into force to get over the issue of individual evaluators indulging in personal bias. Therefore, the concept of four examiners was introduced to explore more diverse viewpoints to minimize the impact of these biases. The inclusion of four examiners brings about a collective decisionmaking process, reducing the influence of individual prejudices and enhancing the overall fairness of practical and theory examinations," it further noted.
With this observation, the HC bench declared the marks awarded to the petitioner students in the practical exam vide 'Practical Answer Booklet' issued by RGUHS is declared as null and void and quashed it.
"The respondent-University is hereby directed to re-conduct practical/clinical exam in respect of daughter of the petitioner in W.P.No.7019/2023 and in respect of other petitioners in terms of Regulation 13 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, notified by the Medical Council of India irrespective of ensuing supplementary exams," the bench ordered.
RGUHS has further been directed to fix the schedule for practical exams before the ensuing supplementary exams and noted, "It is needless to say that, in the event, the petitioners succeed in the practical exams, results relating to theory appear has to be announced afresh before the ensuing supplementary exams."
The petitioner students had been declared unsuccessful in the practical examination in February 2023. It was their claim that in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, four examiners must independently award marks and use their independent judgment and discreton to evaluate the students.
Also Read: Violation of Exam Guidelines: HC directs RGUHS to blacklist delinquent examiners
Approaching the HC bench, the petitioner students questioned the manner in which evaluation was done and contended that in the University did not conduct practical exams in a fair manner adhering to the regulations. Placing reliance on the photocopies of the answer sheets, the petitioners claimed that RGUHS has conspicuously omitted the column for remarks.
On the other hand, the counsel for RGUHS argued that the petitioners were very well conversant with the Rules and methodology that would be adopted by RGUHS and argued that they cannot selectively question the process of conducting examinations only in respect of practical exams on the ground that examiners have not independently assessed and assigned marks.
While considering the question, as to whether the answer booklet relating to practical examination meets the requirement set down by the MCI regulations on medical education, the HC bench observed, "This Court while addressing an identical issue was not inclined to accept the contention raised by the respondent-University. This Court held that the practical exams conducted by the respondent-University should apply MCI regulations which prescribes a set of four examiners. The co-ordinate Bench placing reliance on the regulations/notifications issued by the Apex body held that regulations are mandatory in nature and their violation renders the practical examination and consequent answer booklet invalid."
A similar view was taken by the co-ordinate Bench as well and referring to that, the HC bench observed
, "Therefore, now it is a settled principle of law that MCI which is now known as NMC has prescribed a set of four examiners for theory and practicals. It goes without saying that every examiner has to independently assess and assign marks which is lacking in the present batch of petitions. Therefore, it is unfortunate that respondent-University and examiners in gross violation of the findings recorded by co-ordinate Bench are again repeating the same mistakes."
While RGUHS argued against the need for every examiner to assign individual marks, the HC bench observed,
"In practical examinations also, the MCI thought of having four examiners so as to evaluate students the real world skills and competencies. The Apex body was also of the view that single or dual examiner assessment may not capture the full spectrum of a student's performance. By involving four examiners with diverse expertise, a more comprehensive evaluation was sought to be achieved."
"Each examiner brings his unique knowledge and experience, allowing for a broader assessment that encompasses different dimensions of practical proficiency. By having four examiners, the Apex body thought that the students abilities are thoroughly evaluated and recognized," it further noted.
"The concept of four examiners fosters collaboration among professionals in the field. The inclusion of multiple experts in the evaluation process encourages the exchange of ideas, methodologies, and best practices. The collaboration stimulates professional growth and development among the examiners themselves, as they learn from one another and gain insights into different approaches to practical assessments. This continuous improvement contributes to the evolution and refinement of the concept itself," the Court opined.
This is not the first time that the Court has quashed the evaluation by RGUHS and ordered re-evaluation. Medical Dialogues had last year reported that Karnataka HC had asked RGUHS for conducting additional evaluations of the papers in which the students failed. Such direction for conducting additional two evaluations was issued by the HC bench after taking note of the fact that the University had conducted only two evaluations, instead of four evaluations, which is required as per the MCI regulations of 1997.
Referring to such instances, the HC bench observed in this case,
"On meticulous examination of the mark sheet of practicals in all these batch of petitions, this Court has noticed a very disturbed trend, more particularly, the manner in which the respondent-University is conducting theory and practical exams without adhering to the standards prescribed by the MCI which is the Apex body. The instructions to the examiners appointed for the conduction of practicals/clinical and the directions issued by this Court are blatantly violated by the respondent-University."
Clarifying that the NMC rules regarding the four set of examiners need to be followed, the HC bench ordered,
"If the guidelines of the Apex body clearly prescribes four set of examiners, then the respondent-University and its examiners have to follow the directions with all vigor and spirit. The examiners appointed for the conduct of practical exams have to ensure that marks are awarded in the answer scripts and the marks have to be entered in the freeze sheet and answer scripts in the column provided."
"Each of the examiner has to assign marks independently which clearly gives an indication that each examiner has evaluated the performance from their own perspective, highlighting different strengths and areas for improvement. This multidimensional feedback enables students to gain a more holistic understanding of their performance, allowing them to identify their strengths and work on any weaknesses effectively. If each of the examiner assigns independent marks, this increases reliability as well as confidence in the assessment outcomes and ensures that students performances are accurately represented," it further noted.
Referring to the Indian Medical Council Act, the bench noted,
"The Indian Medical Council Act which is found to be relatable to Entry 66 of List I admittedly prevails over any State enactment regulations framed by the Apex body with previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of Apex body i.e., MCI Act now known as NMC."
Clarifying that Universities and examiners are bound to follow the rules regarding examinations it further observed,
"Therefore, the Universities and examiners are bound by the regulations and theory and practical exams are to be conducted by the University in strict adherence to these regulations. Therefore, the writ petitions are bound to succeed and the practical exams conducted by the respondent-University not being strictly in consonance with the procedure prescribed by the MCI, interference is warranted at the hands of this Court."
To view the HC order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rguhs-order-213141.pdf
