Honble LODHA, J.–Dr. Rajiv Mangal filed the writ petition in challenging the action of the respondents in not declaring him successful in the Pre-PG Medical Examination 2007. He passed MBBS course in the year 2002 and was thereafter appointed on contract basis as Medical Officer on 3-3-2003. He served for about three years in the rural areas and obtained a certificate from the Director, Medical & Health Services to that effect.

(2). Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur notified Pre-PG Medical Examination 2007 for admission to MD/MS/Diploma Courses to be held on 28-1-2007. Instruction booklest provided for seats and reservations and eligibility for admission for various categories including the in-service candidates. That as per the seats and reservations, 72 seats were available for inservice general category candidates is not in dispute. Inter alia, the eligibility for admission provided that candidate must have secured at least 50% marks in the general category at the Pre-PG Medical Examination 2007.

(3). The petitioner secured 595 marks out of 1200 marks in the Pre-PG Medical Examination 2007 and was, therefore, declared unsuccessful.

(4). Up-set thereby he approached this court and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:

(i) hold the petitioner entitled to be declared pass and eligible for admission in the examination by granting benefit of rounding off of the marks as an in-service candidate;

(ii) declare condition No. 4(m) directing deduction of one mark, relating to more than one answer indicated against a question in spite of the same being struck of, as bad in law and hold the petitioner entitled to be given the benefit of the correct answer given in question No. 141.

(5). The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 19-2-2007 by the following order:

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the record. It is total discretion of the experts to lay down criteria for examination for admission to a particular course. No interference, whatsoever, is called for by this court in such academic matters under writ jurisdiction, more so, when the criteria so fixed has been applied to all the candidates. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merit.

(6). Hence, the appeal.

(7). We heard Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.A. Katta, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 at quite some length.

(8). With regard to the prayer (ii) afore-quoted, challenging legality and constitutionality of Condition No. 4(m), we are of the view that the appellant-petitioner is estopped from challenging the said clause.

(9). Clause 4(m) of the Instruction booklet reads thus:

Each answer with correct response shall be awarded four marks. Negative marking will be adopted for incorrect responses. One mark will be deducted for each incorrect response. Zero mark will be given for the question not answered. More than one answer indicated against a question will be deemed as incorrect and one mark will be deducted accordingly.

(10). When the petitioner appeared in the examination, he was well aware that the negative marking shall be adopted for incorrect responses; one mark shall be deducted for each incorrect response and if more than one answer was indicated against the question, it shall be deemed as incorrect and one mark shall be deducted accordingly. The petitioner took conscious decision for appearing in Pre-PG Medical Examination- 2007 that provided for negative marking and all the answer books were examined with that touch stone. It is too late for the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of Rule 4(m).

(11). The whole focus of the debate centered around whether the petitioner could get benefit of rounding off when he secured more than half of the fraction namely; 49.58%.

(12). The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the benefit of rounding off has been repeatedly given in diverse professional courses to the candidates secu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document