SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Raj) 569

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.M.Kasliwal, I.S.Israni, JJ.
Shyam Sunder Pathak - Appellant
Versus
University Of Rajasthan & ors. - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 195 of 1986.
Decided On : 18-07-1986

A student who has been awarded zero mark in a clinical test without any proper explanation from the examiners is entitled to a direction from the court to revise his result by substituting the zero mark with the marks obtained by him in a subsequent clinical test.

Headnote:

MEDICAL EDUCATION - MBBS DEGREE - AWARD OF ZERO MARK IN CLINICAL TEST - REVISION OF RESULT - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN COMPLETING ROTATING INTERNSHIP - REGISTRATION IN POST GRADUATION COURSE - DIRECTIONS ISSUED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a medical student, was awarded a zero mark in the long case (one) clinical test for the final MBBS examination held in February 1985. He filed a writ petition challenging the result and seeking a direction to the university to award him at least 50% marks in the clinical test or the average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects. The university, after considering the petitioner's representation, referred the matter to the academic council for a final decision. The petitioner then filed a special appeal challenging the university's decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had been awarded zero mark in the clinical test without any proper explanation from the examiners. The court also noted that the petitioner had performed well in other papers and had secured 7 marks out of 10 for day-to-day clinical assessment and 25 marks out of 40 for periodical assessment. The court held that great injustice had been done to the petitioner and directed the university to revise his result by substituting the zero mark with the marks obtained by him in the clinical test held in August 1985.

Issues: 1. Whether the university was justified in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in the clinical test without any proper explanation? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction from the court to award him at least 50% marks in the clinical test or the average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay in completing the rotating internship and registration in the post-graduation course?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the university was not justified in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in the clinical test without any proper explanation from the examiners. The court relied on the fact that the petitioner had performed well in other papers and had secured marks in day-to-day clinical assessment and periodical assessment. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a direction from the court to revise his result by substituting the zero mark with the marks obtained by him in the clinical test held in August 1985. The court took into account the fact that the petitioner had been awarded zero mark without any proper explanation and that he had performed well in other papers. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay in completing the rotating internship and registration in the post-graduation course. The court took into account the fact that the petitioner had been allowed to join the rotating internship on 20th July 1985, instead of 11th July 1985, as directed by the court, and that the delay was not due to any fault on his part.

Final Decision: The court allowed the special appeal and directed the university to revise the petitioner's result by substituting the zero mark with the marks obtained by him in the clinical test held in August 1985. The court also directed the university to confer the degree of MBBS on the petitioner on June 15, 1986, and to grant him registration in the post-graduation course along with his batch mates.

JUDGMENT

1. 1. The petitioner Shyam Sunder Pathak filed a writ petition No. 1128/1985 in which he made the following prayers:

(a) accept the writ petition;

(b) quash the result pertaining to the Long Case (one) Clinical Test for Final MBBS held in the year 1985, whereby the petitioner had been awarded a 'Zero' mark out of 60 (Annexure-7) by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ as this Court may think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

(c) declare the action of the University of Rajasthan of making another reference to Shri Bharathi and to Academic Council as ultra vires of the powers of the University and of no consequence what ever in the eye of law;

(d) issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ directing the University to award at least 50% marks in the Long Case (one) Clinical Test or average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects or such marks as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and just in the circumstances of the case;

(e) In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of mandamous or any other appropriate order, direction or writ directing the University to examine the petitioner in the Paper of Long Case (one) Clinical Test with a set of examiners other than those who have already examined him, at the earliest and in the meanwhile the Respondents be directed to admit the petitioner to Rotating Internship before July 7, 1985 as that the petitioner is awarded MBBS Degree along with his other batch mates of February, 1985 and his chance of Post-Graduate in a subject according to his merit is not jeopardised and the petitioner is not being put to any loss in his future career;

(f) Any other relief deemed fit and just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner;

(g) Cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned Single Judge by order dated May 19, 1986 observed as under:

(kindly See 1986 RLR 498, para 11-Editor)

3. Learned Single Judge thereafter held that the petitioner had been awarded zero mark in the long case and record relating to the said examination is not available and, it is not possible to make an objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner could have legitimately asked for a direction by this court for holding of a special examination in the paper in which the petitioner had failed and for declaration of his result on the basis of the marks obtained in the said special examination. The giving of such a direction for holding a especial examination for the petitioner is not necessary in the present case because during the pendency of this writ petition, an examination was held in August, 1985 and the petitioner appeared in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics in the said examination and in that examination he has passed in that subject. In the circumstances the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Clinical Examination for long case in the said examination can be taken into account for the purpose of directing the University to declare the result of the petitioner in the MBBS Final examination after taking into account the marks obtained by him in the long case in the Clinical examination in the examination held in August, 1985.

4. Learned Single Judge after recording the above findings gave the following relief in the operative part of the judgment.

"The writ petition is therefore allowed and the University is directed that the result of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. Final examination held in February, 1985 be revised and in the place of the marks awarded to him in the said examination in the long case in the Clinical examination in the subject of Surgery including Orthopaedics the marks obtained by him in the long case in the Clinical examination in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics held in August, 1985 may be substituted and the result of the petitioner be declared on that bas














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top