Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7119
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, CJ, Sathish Ninan, J
RUKSANA NOUSHAD – Appellant
Versus
KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE – Respondent
WA 2082 2016
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SMT.K.R.MONISHA, SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
The university's adherence to its established rules in evaluating exam papers is crucial, and only future amendments can affect current procedures.
Headnote:
Valuation - Academic Appeals - University Rules - Section 1-3 - The court upheld the university's procedural correctness in evaluating exam papers, focusing on adherence to existing rules at the time of evaluation, and permitted consideration of a representation under amended rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the valuation of her Anatomy Paper No.II, receiving an average of 23 marks from three valuers, which resulted in her failing the course. She challenged the valuation procedure in court after her appeal to the university was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no fault in the university's valuation process, affirming it complied with existing university rules at the time of evaluation. The new amended rules, however, were not applicable to the current case.
Issues: Whether the university's valuation process was just and in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of the evaluation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural rules existing at the time of the evaluation are binding, and any amendments post-evaluation do not retroactively apply.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J.
The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17.08.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 27250 of 2016 by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.
2. The grievance of the appellant is with regard to the valuation of her answer papers in respect of Anatomy Paper No.II. The marks awarded by the first and second valuers are 25 and 23 respectively. However, since the average mark was 24 and as the same was lying between 45% and 49% of the total marks, the answer paper (Anatomy Paper No.II) of the appellant was sent for third valuation as per the Rules of the University. The third valuer awarded only 22 marks for the said paper. The respondent University took the average of the three marks and awarded 23 marks in favour of the appellant in WA 2082/2016 Anatomy Paper No.II. Consequently, she was declared to be failed. Hence, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27250 of 2016, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment with an observation that it is open for the University to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner.
3. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The procedure adopted by the University, as mentioned supra, is just and proper in as much as the same is in accordance with the Rules of the University. However, subsequently, in the month of August, 2016, the Rules are said to have been amended. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amended rules are beneficial to the students. But, the case on hand is of February, 2016, whereas the amended rules have come into effect only in the Month of August, 2016.
Be that as it may, since the appellant has made a representation as per Ext.P5 before the grievance redressal committee set up by the University, it is open for the said WA 2082/2016 Committee to take up the matter as required in law, as early as possible.
With the above observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
