The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair evaluation and the application of Double Valuation Method under the amended MCI Regulations.

JUDGMENT

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed for quashing the notification dated 29.03.2019 bearing No.RGU/AUTH/140- SYN/117-7(Exam)/2018-19 vide Annexure-L issued by respondent No.1-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences holding that the same is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and further sought for a direction to the respondent No.1-University for re-evaluation of Physiology Paper I and II and also of Bio-chemistry Paper I and Paper II of the petitioner (with Register No.18M4219) studying in respondent No.3-College.

2. The petitioner is a student studying in respondent No.3-S.S. Institute of Research and Medical Centre, Davanagere, which is affiliated to respondent No.1-University established under Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as RGHUS Act ). By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 35(1) of the RGHUS Act, the respondent No.1 has been issuing various notifications/ordinances in relation to inter alia conduct of examinations. The petitioner had appeared for first year examinations held in June 2019, but failed in three subjects viz., Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-chemistry. She appeared for supplementary examinations conducted in October 2019, but passed in only one subject viz., Anatomy and failed in two subjects viz., Physiology and Bio-chemistry. The petitioner intended to apply for reevaluation but she was informed that there was no provision or scope for revaluation in view of the notification as per Annexure-L. There is no reasonable explanation as to why a student who has not been successful in one component must repeat the other components, which she/he has been successful in, when the preparation required and the skills tested under each of these types of examination are different. In view of the said notification under challenge, the petitioner is required to once again attempt the internal assessment and practical though she has cleared them satisfactorily in her very first attempt. This duplication of effort from the student, who has been successful is unjustified. Thus, the notification as per Annexure-L is arbitrary and the same cannot be sustained in law.

3. The notification is regarding the Ordinance Governing Undergraduate evaluation of answer scripts promulgated by the respondent University through it s Syndicate vide Notification dated 29.03.2019; the said Ordinance is made effective from 01.03.2019 which provides for Deviation Valuation to be conducted by the third evaluator where the difference of marks awarded by the two evaluators inter se is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper in question.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. Both counsels have submitted that this writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 10.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, the present writ petition may be allowed and necessary orders may be passed as prayed for.

6. The challenge to the impugned Ordinance (Notification dated 29.03.2019 bearing No.RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-7(Exam)/2018-19 vide Annexure-L) is inter alia on the grounds of legislative competence, arbitrariness, retrospectivity, nonpublication, procedural infirmities and repugnancy with the extant MCI Regulations; it is also contended that the impugned Ordinance does not address the cases of extreme erratic valuations and therefore Writ Court should not refrain from granting relief to the victims de horse Ordinance in such matters; arguments are also advanced for reading down of the Ordinance; the Ordinance is apparently repugnant to the provisions of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 promulgated by the Medical Council of India u/s 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

7. The facts involved in the present writ petition are identical to that of the facts and grounds urged in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matte