IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. Veerappa, J.
Dr. Haritha Ravipati - Petitioner
Versus
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences for Karnataka, Bengaluru & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 49749 of 2016 (EDN), 44342 & 46632 of 2016
Decided On : 27-09-2016
Further Held, The notification dated 01.07.2015 issued by the 1st respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences introducing double evaluation system is contrary to Regulation 14(1)(b) of the Regulations. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). lt prevails over any State enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provision of the Act, even though the State Acts may be relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Indian Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If a regulation falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Therefore, the notification dated 01.07.2015 issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University is repugnant to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and contrary to the Regulation 14(1)(b) of the Regulations.
B. Veerappa, J.
The petitioners, who are Post-graduate students of M.D. Dermatology, M.S. General Medicine and Orthopedics are before this Court.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 49749 of 2016, who is Post-graduate student in M.D. Dermatology has sought for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Notification dated 1-7-2015 bearing No. AUTH/Exam/Val/PG/24/2015 issued by the 2nd respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences for Karnataka vide Annexure-D; a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to respondents 1 and 2 to conduct fresh valuation in respect of answer scripts of Theory Papers I, II and III of the Subject in M.D. Dermatology in respect of her examination undertaken in June/July 2016 and consequently declaring that she has passed in the said examination and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider her representation dated 1-9-2016 vide Annexures-E and El respectively.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 46632 of 2016, who is a Post-graduate student in ms (Orthopedics), has sought for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-University to award additional marks to the answers given by him for Question Nos. 3,5,6, 7 and 1 of Theory Paper III as per the answer script at Annexure-E in the M.S. (Orthopedics) examination conducted by the 1st respondent-University in June/July 2016 and also to refer his answer scripts - Annexure-E in Theory Paper - III of MS (Orthopedics) examination conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to the third examiner.
4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 44342 of 2016 who is Post-graduate student in M.S. General Medicine has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to get the answer scripts evaluated by the four individual examiners in accordance with Regulation 14(1)(b) of the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and also to publish the results of such revaluation as earliest possible juncture.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 49749 of 2016 that she has secured a seat in M.D. Dermatology in J.J.M. Medical College, Davangere. Subsequent to admission to the M.D. Dermatology Course, her seat was approved by the University. The synopsis of the thesis was also approved by the University. She having completed the course of study for three years, submitted the 'thesis' which came to be approved by the University for evaluation. Subsequently she having completed all the requisite material study, had completely prepared to appear in the final examination to be conducted by the University in the months of June, July 2016. The petitioner has all along been a student of high calibre and has consistently been securing high marks throughout her schooling, college and graduate level. On 1-7-2015 the 1st respondent-University issued notification modifying the earlier system of evaluation by four evaluators (two internal and 2 external) to only by two (internal) evaluators. The said modification of the ordinance governing multiple valuation of Post-graduate Courses under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is in complete contravention of the minimum standards of educations notified by the Medical Council of India under the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, more particularly Regulation 14 of the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which is binding on the respondent-University. The petitioner having completed the course of study for 3 years, being fully prepared to appear in the final examinations, appeared for the Post-graduation Examinations conducted by the University during June/July 2016. The results of the examination undertaken by her being announced by the University in the last week of July 2016, to her utter shock and dismay, she was declared as having failed in the theory examinations. On perusal of the s
Deputy Registrar v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlul
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka
State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.