2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9260
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA, J
DR. SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHANKARGOUD PATIL – Appellant
Versus
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS – Respondent
WP 223450/2020
Advocates:
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE; SRI S.R. KADLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
A petitioner cannot compel a university to re-evaluate an examination paper by a fifth evaluator when no such provision exists in the university's regulations.
Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Evaluation Process - The petitioner sought revaluation of examination papers for M.D. Forensic Medicine, claiming discrepancies in marks awarded by four evaluators - The court noted the absence of a provision in university guidelines for a fifth evaluator. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Legal Standing - The petitioner failed to demonstrate a legal basis for the requested evaluation process. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having appeared for the M.D. Forensic Medicine examination, was dissatisfied with the evaluations and sought a fifth evaluator due to differing marks from the first four.
Findings of Court:
The court found no procedural basis in the university regulations to justify sending the answer script for a fifth evaluation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a right to request a fifth evaluator under existing university regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's request lacked a legal foundation as per the university's guidelines, which do not provide for a fifth evaluator.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDERHeard Sri Narendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 served and unrepresented.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“Allow this Writ Petition and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for challenge the evaluation of the theory papers of Forensic Medicine papers TP2 and TP4 of petitioner conducted by respondent No.2 in the examination for M.D. Forensic Medicine held in the month of November 2019 on the provision of challenging the evaluation relating to the petitioner Registration nO.11MF752 of All- Ameen Medical College Center, Vijayapura the respondent No.3 to the 5th evaluator, in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he appeared for the post graduation in forensic science examination in the third respondent-institution. He was unsuccessful and therefore, he sought for revaluation.
The paper got revalued by four valuators, each one of them has given different marks. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking his paper to be revalued by fifth valuator and he sought for mandamus to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to send the answer script of the petitioner for fifth valuator.
4. Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that such a procedure is not available in the guidelines of the university or regulations thereof. Therefore, the writ prayer cannot be granted.
5. The petitioner fails to point out under what provision answer script of the petitioner is to be sent for fifth valuator.
6. In view of the guidelines and regulations of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted.
7. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
