1986 Supreme(Raj) 521
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Shyam Sunder Pathak - Appellant
Versus
University of Rajasthan & other - Respondent
S. B. C. W. P. No. 1128 of 1985.
Decided On : 19-05-1986
In the absence of objective material to support the examiners' decision, the awarding of zero mark in a clinical examination is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Headnote:
MEDICAL EDUCATION - M.B.B.S. DEGREE - FINAL YEAR EXAMINATION - CLINICAL EXAMINATION IN LONG CASE - AWARDING OF ZERO MARK - ARBITRARINESS - OBJECTIVE MATERIAL FOR ASSESSMENT NOT AVAILABLE - SPECIAL EXAMINATION NOT NECESSARY - MARKS OBTAINED IN SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION CAN BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of M.B.B.S. degree course, challenged the awarding of zero mark in the long case clinical examination in the final year M.B.B.S. examination. The petitioner had a brilliant academic record and had performed well in other papers of the final examination. The notes prepared by the petitioner during the clinical examination were destroyed by the examiners, leaving no objective material for assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the awarding of zero mark was unusual and that the examiners had not provided any explanation for their decision. The court also noted that the petitioner had performed well in other papers of the final examination and had subsequently passed the subject in a special examination held in August 1985.
Issues: 1. Whether the awarding of zero mark in the clinical examination was arbitrary and unreasonable? 2. Whether the destruction of the notes prepared by the petitioner during the clinical examination prejudiced his case? 3. Whether the marks obtained by the petitioner in the subsequent examination could be considered for declaring his result in the final examination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the awarding of zero mark was arbitrary and unreasonable in the absence of any objective material to support the examiners' decision. 2. The court held that the destruction of the notes prepared by the petitioner during the clinical examination prejudiced his case as it left no objective material for assessment. 3. The court held that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the subsequent examination could be considered for declaring his result in the final examination, given the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the university to revise the petitioner's result in the final examination by substituting the marks obtained by him in the long case clinical examination in the subsequent examination held in August 1985.
JUDGMENT
1. - Shyam Sunder Pathak, the petitioner in this writ petition, was a student the M. B.B S. degree course of the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the University) in the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. He joined the said course in January, 1980. after selection in the Pre-Medical Test held in 1979. The M.B.B.S. degree course is divided into three phases, each of about 18 months duration. Phase I consists of Pre-Clinical Subjects and examination for those subjects is known as 1st M.B B S. examination. Phase II involves teaching in Para- clinical;clinical subjects which is followed by the second M.B.B.S examination. Phase III is continuation of the study of clinical subjects and it is followed by the final M.B.B.S. examination. The petitioner passed the 1st M.B.B S. examination, in September. 1981 and secured 511 marks out of 750 marks i.e. 68% marks. He appeared at the second M B.B.S. examination held in August, 1982 and secured 355 marks out of 600 marks which works out to 59%. The final year M B.B.S. examination was held in February, 1985 and the result of the examination was declared on 29th May, 1985. The final year M. B. B. S. examination consists of following subjects :
1. Medicine including paediatrics.
2. Surgery including Orthopaedics.
3. Obstretrics and Gynaecology, Family Planning and Nutrition.
4. Opthalmology, Ear, Nose and Throat.
5. Community Medicine.
2. Marks for all these subjects are apportioned between Theory papers and Clinical examination. In the subject of Surgery including orthopaedics, out of a total of 400 marks, 250 marks are prescribed for theory papers and 150 marks are prescribed for examination in Clinical. The Clinical examination consists of one long case carrying 60 marks and three Short cases carrying 90 marks. For the purpose of passing a student is required to obtain at least 50% marks in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery. Obstratics and Gynaecology and Opthatmology with a minimum of 50% marks in Clinical of each subjects and he is required to obtain 50% marks in Theory and Clinical separately in the subject of Community Medicine. The petitioner obtained the requiste pass marks in the subjects of Medicine including Paediatrics, Obstratrics and Gynaecology Opthalomology Ear. Nose and Throat and Community Medicine. In the subject of Surgery including orthopaedics, the petitioner secured 154 marks out of 250 marks in Theory and in Clinical he secured 45 marks out of 90 marks in three short cases, but zero mark in the long case. Thus he obtained only 46 marks out of 150 marks in the Clinical. Since he failed to secure minimum of 50% marks in the Clinical of Surgery including Orthopaedics, he was declared failed. On 30th May, 1985 the petitioner submitted a petition (Annexure 8) before the Registrar of the University wherein he submitted that some error had been committed in awarding zero mark to him for the long case in the Clinical of Surgery including Orthopaedics and that the awarding of the said zero mark to him for the long case in the Clinical should be reviewed. In this connection the petitioner also referred to the fact that throughout he has had a brilliant academic career. The said representation of the petitioner was referred to Dr. Gopi Chand Patni, who is Adviser to the Vice Chancellor in matters pertaining to examinations and on his advice the written long case history record of all the candidates was sent for from the Principal, S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur. The Principal, S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur informed the University that the written material of all the candidates who had appeared in the written examination had been destroyed as per report of the concerned Professor of the Surgery Department, and the same could not, therefore, be supplied. The case of the petitioner is that he thereafter met Dr. Patni on June 26, 1985 and Dr. Patni being convinced that the petitioner has been victimised, recommended that the petitioner be examined afresh in the sub
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
