Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
DR. ABHISHEK M. SUTRAVE – Appellant
Versus
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16960 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NITIN RAMESH
For the Respondents: SMT. MAMATA RURURAO KULKARNI, SRI. M.R. PATIL
The court affirmed that academic institutions possess broad authority in evaluation matters, provided they comply with procedural laws without manifest arbitrary conduct, emphasizing limited judicial review in educational contexts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Ordinance Governing Post-Graduation Evaluation (RGUHS Act) - Petition for quashing evaluation procedures and ordinances due to alleged arbitrary marking and lack of model answer keys - The court upheld the authority of the University in evaluating examinations under the established ordinance, rejecting claims of arbitrariness based on procedural compliance and standards set by evaluators - Consultation with the Academic Council deemed sufficient, and the system of multiple evaluators was found beneficial for students. (Paras 10, 16.9, 19.2)
(B) Education Law - Judicial Review - The court held that judicial review in educational matters is limited, particularly regarding evaluation procedures unless clear violations of legal standards occurred - Consultant and evaluative authority remains with academic institutions when no malfeasance is indicated. (Paras 11.1, 14.4, 17.8)
(C) Academic Policies - The necessity of model answers and training for evaluators highlighted, underscoring a call for transparency and accountability in assessments to maintain standards in medical education. (Paras 18.7, 19.3)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petitioner's admission and examination results. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner argues unfair valuation and lack of model answers. (Para 8) |
| 3. respondent university defends its evaluation procedures. (Para 9) |
| 4. court's examination of ordinance compliance and validity. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. recognition of arbitrary differences in evaluations. (Para 17) |
| 6. court emphasizes need for model answers in evaluations. (Para 18) |
| 7. final order dismissing the petition with directives. (Para 19) |
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Clause 5.I(B) of the Ordinance Governing Post-Graduation Including Diploma and Super speciality answer scripts evaluation issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.RGU/AUTH/140- SYN/117-6(Exam)/2018-19 dated 29.03.2019 vide Annexure-F,
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration to hold that the evaluation done by the 5th valuator in the impugned digital valuation slip of the petitioner for the subject of advanced teaching of fundamentals of homeopathy (paper code A02) for register number 21HC001 dated 29.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-B shall be final and binding,
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration that the valuation done by the 4 valuators without a model answer key is patently arbitrary and unfair;
(iv) Pass such other writ, order or direction in the interest of justice and equity and (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the ordinance governing post- graduation including diploma and super speciality answer scripts RGU/AUTH/140-syn/117-6(Exam)/ 2018-19, dated 29/03/2019 vide Annexure-F.
2. The petitioner is a student of the 2nd respondent- Government Homeopathic Medical College, (for short, ‘GHMC’), Bengaluru, having completed his Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery, (for short ‘BHMAS’) from GHMC in the year 2021, obtained an aggregate score of 2721/4600 in the IV- year UG course.
3. The petitioner thereafter approached the All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) , and appeared for the AIAPGET examinations for the course of MD in Homeopathy on 18.09.2021. In terms thereof, results came to be declared on 21.10.2021, and the petitioner obtained an All-India rank of 36 with a score of 310/480 amounting to 99.44 percentile. The petitioner was informed that the counselling for seat allocation would be held on 17.03.2022, and the document verification would take place on 21.03.2022. The petitioner having attended both the above was granted admission to GHMC for the MD course for an Ayush Degree/ Practice of Medicine (Homeopathy) which had commenced on 18.04.2022.
4. The first year MD examination was conducted from 31.10.2023 to 04.11.2023 and the petitioner appeared in all the examinations including theory and practicals. The results of the Ist year MD examinations were declared on 11.12.2023, in which the petitioner had cleared two out of three papers.
5. In the subject-Advanced Teaching of Fundamentals of Homeopathy the petitioner obtained 86/150 marks (theory 46/100, average of 4 valuations, practical and viva 40/50). The petitioner though scored 80% in his practical examination, but failed in the theory examination of the aforesaid subject. The petitioner appeared for the second attempt re-examination of that subject on 14.03.2024. The results of the second attempt/re-examination were announced on 29.04.2024, the petitioner received a total score of 87/150 (theory 44/100, practical and viva 43/50).
6. The petitioner having noticed the difference between the highest marks awarded by Evaluator No.II and the lowest marks awarded by Evaluator No.I was over 15%, requested for it to be referred to Evaluator No.V, which on such reference, Evaluator No.V awarded the petitioner 55 marks out of 100 in theory.
7. The
