Back
2005 Supreme(Pat) 237
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar, J.
Kumar Satya Prakash
Versus
Patna University
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15906 of 2001 ;
Decided On : MARCH 02, 2005
Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226 r/w 1965 Regulations-Para 5 & 1987 Regulations-para-2(b) of Patna University-benefit of grace marks to the examinees of Medicine Faculty-Board of Moderators is required to the case of failures within the ambit of para-5 of the 1965 Regulations with a view to help the failed candidates so that they are able to pass the examination with the aid of extra marks which they are not otherwise entitled, but are allowed in view of the special provisions of the Regulations which is known in common parlance as "grace marks"-A lenient and compassionate view is writ large on the face of it, which is by way of exception while the candidates really do not deserve on merit-the mode and manner in which, and the exception to which, the grace marks shall be allowed is indicated in para-2(b) of 1987 Regulations-Paregraph-1 of 1987 Regulations lays down in unambiguons terms that this benefit of moderation of the result shall not be applicable to the clinical portion of the examination-petitioners are not entitled for the benefit-Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
(Paras 5 & 10)
Constitution of India-Article 226-separate cause of action in one writ petition-petitioners joining separate cause of action in the writ petition which was overlooked by the Registry at the time of scrutiny-Defect in the frame of the Writ petition detected during the course of submissions-It will not be in the interest of justice to confine this writ petition to one petitioner particularly where petitioners have paid separate court fee.
(Para 2)
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Baidyanath Thakur for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad for the respondents. We have also been assisted by Dr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Patna University.
2. Four petitioners have joined this writ petition raising a seemingly joint cause of action which really is not correct and they have separate cause of action, which was overlooked by the Registry at the time of scrutiny. However, this defect in the frame of the writ petition has been detected during the course of submissions today and, therefore, it may not be in the interest of justice to confine this writ petition to one petitioner. However, the four petitioners have paid separate sets of court fee. Let it be brought to the notice of the learned Registrar General.
3. It is stated in the petition that the four petitioners had joined the MBBS Course of the Patna University, the classes and examination of which are conducted by Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have failed in MBBS, Phase III, Part-I examination details of which are given in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, and are set out hereinbelow :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Candidate Subject Marks obtained Pass Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner No. 1 Opthalmology 26 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner No. 2 -do- 26 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner No. 3 -do- 27 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner No. 4 -do- 28 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is accompanied with the marksheets of the four petitioners of the relevant years marked Annexure-1 series. The petitioners raise a grievance before this Court that they have not been given the benefit of grace marks to which they are entitled under the Regulations of the University.
4 The learned Pro-Vice Chancellor has placed the relevant provisions of the Regulations governing the issue and has explained the manner in which the same has been applied in the case of each petitioner. I shall deal with them one by one hereinafter.
5. I must at the outset state that the pleadings on behalf of the petitioners are seriously wanting and merit dismissal on the ground of vagueness of pleadings. We have, however, taken a lenient view of the matter and decided to dispose of the matter on merits, particularly in view of the submissions of the learned Pro-Vice Chancellor. The relevant provisions (Para-5 of the 1965 Regulations) are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :
(5) That for the examinations in the Faculty of Medicine the Board of Moderators shall re-examine the following cases of failure : (a) In a single subject up to a maximum of five per cent of the total marks of that subject provided that in the cases so considered by the Board failure in each of the portions, namely, (a) written and Oral, (b) Practical or (c) Practical and Clinical, shall not exceed five per cent of the total marks in that portion,
(b) In the written and oral portions of examination by not more than ten per cent of the total marks in the written and oral portions, provided that the candidate has secured sixty per cent of the total marks in Practical or Practical and Clinical portions of the subject.
(6) There shall be no re-examination by the examiners in the Faculty of Engineering, Education, Law and Medicine."
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Rules of Moderation of Results of MBBS Examinations are also relevant in the present context and set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :
1. There shall be no moderation
