R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE17H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.9619 OF2021EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.13119 OF2021EDN-RES) IN WP NO.9619/2021 BETWEEN: VISHWESHWARA C S/O KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT20YEARS REGISTER NO.19M4199 1ST YEAR MBBS STUDENT OF SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE SURATHKAL, MANGALORE-574146 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. REGISTRAR(EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES4H BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-41 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE4H BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-41 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE REGULATION NO.5 OF RESPONDENT ORDINANCE DATED0102.2021 IN REF. AS PER ANNEXURE-C AS INCOMPLETE, ARBITRARY AND SEEKS TO INFUSE INEQUALITY AND THEREFORE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE14OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC., IN WP NO.13119/2021 BETWEEN: SHASHANK S. REDDY S/O. C. N. SHANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, REGISTER No.19M1200, 1ST YEAR MBBS STUDENT OF VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE, BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SARVANA.S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. REGISTRAR(EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES4H BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-41 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES4H BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-41 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE REGULATION NO.5 OF RESPONDENT ORDINANCE DATED12.2021 IN3REFERNECE AS PER ANNEXUE-B AS INCOMPLETE, ARBITRARY AND SEEKS TO INFUSE INEQUALITY AND THEREFORE IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE14OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON0608.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDERThese writ petitions are filed questioning the Ordinance dated 1.2.2021 on the ground that it is incomplete, arbitrary and seeks to infuse inequality and therefore, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents to conduct fresh evaluation of their answer scripts pertaining to 1st year MBBS Phase-I.
2. The common grievance of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is that respondents for the purpose of evaluation of answer scripts have promulgated ordinance governing Central Assessment Program[CAP]. for theory paper assessment of MBBS course, which is applicable to the examinations conducted on or after 1.2.2021. The 4 petitioners contend that the impugned Ordinance has resulted in gross discrimination between the nature of evaluation, consideration of marks and also yardstick which is proposed to be adopted for ironing out the differences in evaluation. They further contend that on account of impugned Ordinance, they have lost few marks. The petitioners also claim that they would have automatically passed being eligible as per Regulation of Graduate Medical Education 1997, which provides grace marks up to maximum of five marks and if applied, would have cleared the examination as a whole.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the amended 2019 Ordinance runs contrary to the several directions issued by this Court. The counsel would further contend that the impugned Ordinance is issued without seeking opinion of expert body and therefore, it does not augur well for the future medical education. The petitioners grievance is that the students community should have also 5 been heard in the matter. He further contends that the impugned Ordinance lacks broad vision and therefore, the same is susceptible as it does not satisfy the Constitutional mandate.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, reiterating the defence taken in the statement of objections would submit that the earlier Ordinances dated 29.3.2019 and 13.10.2020 were subject matter of batch of writ petitions and the Regulations were quashed by this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019 and W.P.No.231/2021. The respondents have promulgated the impugned Ordinance so as to keep the system in place thereby the majority of the students are not put to hardship. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and submit that this Court has observed that "it is open for the University to promulgate similar Ordinance and may adopt double valuation under new amended MCI Regulations". 6
5. Learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the amended Regulations of Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 1997 which was brought into force w.e.f. 6.11.2019 and therefore, submits that the students admitted for the academic year 2019-20 onwards are bound by the amended Regulations under Clause 11.2.9(j). The learned Senior Counsel would also lay emphasis in promulgating the impugned Ordinance by respondents. He would submit to this Court that as the examination process have commenced which was first annual examinations for the students appearing under the amended MCI Regulations, it was well within the discretion and powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short "RGUHS Act, 1994") to introduce the impugned Ordinance in the meeting of the Committee of Academic Council which was held on 1.2.2021. He would submit that after deliberations, the Ordinance introduced by the Vice-Chancellor was approved by the Committee of 7 Academic Council. The new Ordinance which has introduced the new policy of assessment of theory answer scripts is strictly in consonance with the MCI Advisory and therefore, the petitioners who are students have no locus standi to question the legality of the Ordinance just to get their answer scripts revaluated.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, 1994 and also Section 35(2)(d) and Section 35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. The learned Senior Counsel has further taken this Court through all the Ordinances promulgated by the respondent- University. On these set of defences, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:
"1. (1984) 4 SCC27 Mharashtra Board of Sec. Edn Vs. Parithosh.
2. (2018) 2 SCC357- Ran Vijay Singh Vs State of UP3 Judgment in C A12642019 - High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi - D.D. 6.2.2019= 2019 SC Online SC139 8 4. (2012) 1 SCC157- Sanchit Bansal Vs Joint Admission Board.
5. AIR2009SC2322- AICTE Vs Surinder Kumar.
6. (2004) 6 SCC714- Promod Kumar Srivatsava Vs Chairman Bihar PSC.
7. Judgment in W.A67352020 - Ms. R.Varsha Vs. RGUHS (DB) D.D.2.06.2017 8. Judgment in W.P. 58303/2017 - Vamsi T N Vs. RGUHS D.D. 16.01.2018 9. Judgment in W.P. 31195/2016 & connected W.P's- Mr.Vishnuram & othrs. Vs RGUHS.
10. Judgment in W.P. 15042/2027 Basanth K.B & Othrs Vs. RGUHS
7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Ordinance is strictly in terms with the amended Regulations and therefore, the present petitioners who were admitted post 2019 were well aware of the amended regulations and therefore, cannot seek four valuation system. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this Court that the ordinance passed by the respondent-University does not suffer from any arbitrariness and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate the 9 discrimination as alleged in the writ petitions. The ordinance under challenge satisfies the Constitutional mandate and therefore, may not warrant judicial review at the hands of this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for respondents.
9. Before I proceed with the present controversy on hand, this Court needs to allude to the checkered history to the challenge of Ordinances that were passed from time to time by respondent-University. The Syndicate of respondent- University has promulgated Ordinances from time to time under Section 35(1) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. There has been consistent challenge to the Ordinances passed by the respondent-University and this probably prompted the respondent-University in revising and revamping the process of providing valuation and revaluation of answer papers of Undergraduate Medical, Dental and Super specialty courses. 10
10. The 1999 Ordinance reads as under:
"(A) Para 3 (ii) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (Provision for double valuation) Ordinances, 1999 reads as under: “DOUBLE VALUATION” “ii. All answer papers wherein the difference in award of marks between the first and second value is 20% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for that paper, shall be referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from the approved panel. The average marks of any two valuations close to each other shall be the final marks to be awarded for declaration of result. If the difference between any of the two valuations out of the three is same, then the award for declaration of result shall be chosen to the best advantage of the candidate. In all other cases, the average of the marks awarded by the first and second valuers shall be taken as final.” (B) 2010 Ordinance Governing Revaluation: The 2010 “Ordinance Governing Revaluation”, promulgated vide Notification dated 23.03.2010 introduced the revaluation system by the 3rd and 5th examiners for 87 U.G. and P.G. examinations respectively. Paragraph 4 of the said Ordinance reads as under: “PROCEDURE FOR REVALUATION: (i) All the answer papers wherein the difference in award of marks between two valuers and four valuers as the case may be in the general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to a 3rd or 5th examiner as the case may be for 11 valuation appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel. (ii) The average of the marks awarded by the 3rd examiner and the marks close to it in the two general valuations shall be considered for final computation of the results. (iii) The average of marks awarded by the 5th examiner and the other three marks close to it amongst the four general valuation marks shall be considered for the final computation of the results. The marks awarded and the results declared after revaluation shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained.” (C) Paragraph 4 of 2012 “Ordinance Governing Multiple valuation”, published vide Notification dated 15.06.2012 reads as under: “4. PROCEDURE FOR MULTIPLE VALUATION: (i) All the answer-papers which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel. (ii) All the answer-papers which are subjected for four valuations, wherein the difference in 88 award of marks between FOUR valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to FIFTH examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel. (iii) The average of BEST OF TWO OUT OF THREE VALUATION marks or the average of BEST OF FOUR OUT OF FIVE VALUATION MARKS as the case may be shall be considered for the final computation of the results. (iv) The marks awarded and the results declared after 12 considering this notification shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained.” (D) 2017 Ordinance promulgated vide Notification dated 09.01.2017 for U.G. examination has been extracted hereunder: “Each paper shall be subjected for double valuation. The deviation report shall be generated based on the actual marks scored by the candidate if the difference of marks between valuations is > 15 % of the maximum marks stipulated for the paper without rounding up the marks to the next higher whole digit. Average of best of two valuation marks shall be considered for final computation of results after rounding up the fractional mark, if nay, to the next higher whole digit.” (E) 2017 Ordinance promulgated vide Notification dated 17.10.2017 for the examinations of P.G. Degree and Diploma Courses, paragraph (b) whereof, reads as under: “b) In the answer paper, if the difference in the marks awarded between four evaluators is equal to or more than 15%, such answer papers shall be referred to 5th valuation.
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta.vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Another(W.P.No.31335/2019) along with connected writ petitions while interpreting 13(2) of 1997 Regulation with that of Regulation 14(1)(b) of the MCI Post 13 Graduate Medical Regulations 2000 (MCI Regulations, 2000) was not inclined to accede to the contentions of respondent- University that amended MCI Regulations 2019 adopting double valuation method has to be implemented retrospectively. The learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that amended MCI Regulations 2019 is prospective in nature and even if the MCI Regulations 2019 on account of prospective application may open a flood gate of litigations cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the similarly placed students in availing four valuation system even for undergraduate medicine students. In operative portion, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court however left it to the wisdom of respondent-University to re-promulgate similar Ordinance if and when it duly adopts double valuation method under the now amended MCI Regulations.
12. The respondent-University by notification dated 13.10.2020 citing compliance of directions issued by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and 14 connected matters brought an amendment to the Ordinance as follows:
"ACA/DCD/UG/EXAM/404/2020-2021 Dt:13/10/2020 NOTIFICATION Sub: Amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme). Ref:
1. Directions of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters 10/08/2020.
2. Minutes of the 152nd Syndicate meeting held on 09/10/2020. The Syndicate in its 152nd meeting held on 09/10/2020 has approved implementation of the directions of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters regarding valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme). Hence in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35(1) of RGUHS Act, 1994, amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course (RS-3 scheme) is notified as below. a. All answer scripts of Undergraduate Course in Medical (RS-3 Scheme) shall be subjected to Digital Valuation by the four evaluators in which 50% of them by Internal examiners and 50% by external examiners of different University other than RGUHS and preferably by outside the state as prescribed by MCI/RGUHS. The average of the total marks awarded by the four evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for computation of the results. b. The marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained. This amendment to the ordinance is applicable with immediate effect. By Order. Sd/- REGISTRAR"
1. 13. As expected this amendment was also called in question by batch of students in series of writ petitions filed in W.P.No.231/2021 and connected writ petitions. The grievance of the students was that the amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS course is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having examined the rival contentions canvassed by the petitioners and respondent-University and having bestowed its considerations was of the view that the amendment to Ordinance governing valuation of answer scripts was brought in by the Vice- Chancellor without consultation with the Academic Council and in the absence of experts opinion as required under Section 35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act, 1994, and as such the impugned Ordinance dated 13.10.2020 is without authority of law. The Co-ordinate Bench while parting with the judgment directed the respondent-University to come up with a policy after securing opinion from experts which would be in the best 16 interest of medical education and consequently the amendment governing valuation of answer scripts was quashed and a mandamus issued to the respondent-University to carry out valuation by adopting four valuation system.
14. The respondent-University in compliance of the directions issued by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31335/2019 has come up with the impugned Ordinance dated 1.2.2021 and the same is titled as Ordinance Governing Central Assessment Programme for theory paper assessment of MBBS course. Clause 3(a), 3(b) and clause (5) reads as under:
"3. DEFINITIONS: a. General Valuation - means two evaluations conducted by two independent examiners of a particular theory Answer script subject. b. Deviation Valuation - means the valuation conducted by the 3rd examiner as per this Ordinance in case of deviation between the total marks awarded by the two examiners in the General Valuation is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper. The algebraic formula for the purpose of 3rd valuation shall be as follows 17 "If the total mark awarded by the first examiner is X, and that awarded by the second examiner is Y, and the maximum marks prescribed is Z, then answer paper goes for the third valuation if [X-Y]. ≥ (0.15 X Z)". c. Central Assessment Programme (CAP)- means conduct of MBBS theory paper assessment through digital valuation system as per this Ordinance.
5. Procedure for Valuation of Theory Answer Scripts: a. All the theory answer scripts are evaluated through Digital valuation System of RGUHS. b. i) General Valuation: All the theory answer scripts shall be evaluated by eligible examiners as specified in 11.2.9(a) any of GMER, 2019. Every theory answer script shall be evaluated by any eligible two Internal examiners from affiliated institutes of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. c. ii) Deviation Valuation: All the theory answer scripts where the difference in award of total marks between two examiners in the general valuation is 15% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to any other eligible 3 internal examiner for evaluation.
15. Before promulgating the impugned Ordinance, the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University in exercise of his power conferred under Section 13(2) of the RGUHS Act, 1994, placed the Ordinance before the Committee of Academic Council which was held on 1.2.2021. On perusal of Annexure- 18 R2, it is clearly evident that the Ordinance was placed before the Committee of Academic Council under Subject No.2 and the Academic Council ratified the Ordinance and recommended to place it before the Syndicate. Thereupon the Ordinance so introduced by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Committee of Academic Council was placed before the Syndicate which deliberated on the subject and the Syndicate passed a resolution on 21.2.2021.
16. The Advisory Board namely National Medical Commission by a notification dated 28.1.2021 vide Annexure- R4 in terms of Graduate Medical Education Regulations(Amendment) 2019 directed the University to adhere to Part-II Clause 11.2.9 of Amended Regulations 2019 in regard to appointment of external examiners. The National Medical Council also by way of advisory directed the respondent-University that it may adopt the clause mentioned in 11.2.9(j) of Graduate Medical Education Regulations(Amendment) 2019. 19
17. It would be also useful for this Court to refer to clause 11.2.9(j) of Regulations of Graduate medical Education(Amendment) 2019, which reads as under:
"(j)All theory paper assessment should be done as Central Assessment Program(CAP) of concerned university
18. The question that would arise before this Court is whether the impugned Ordinance as per Annexure-B is vitiated by lack of nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the respondent-University. This Court needs to examine whether there are any glaring aberrations and infractions of statutory Rules while promulgating the impugned ordinance. The grievance of the failed students before this Court is that the impugned ordinance is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.31335/2019 and a contention is raised that there cannot be two valuations for under graduates and post graduates. The petitioners claim 20 that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has struck down the impugned notification dated 29.3.2019 in its entirety by declaring that there cannot be two systems of evaluation. The petitioners are also aggrieved on the ground that respondent- University has not taken experts view from the community of students. If these grounds urged in the writ petitions are taken into consideration, the petitioners have challenged the impugned ordinance on the ground of discrimination and also on the ground that the impugned ordinance is promulgated in violation of the directions issued by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019.
19. Let me examine the controversy in the present cases on hand in the light of the directions issued by the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019 and also the authority of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act, 1994. 21
20. On a plain reading of Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act 1994, what emerges is that Vice-Chancellor under the said Section has power to take appropriate action relating to affairs of the University. What can be gathered is that he is the principal executive and academic Officer of the University and is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non-academic affairs. The Vice- Chancellor of the respondent-University has power to regulate the work and also has emergency powers to deal with any untoward situation. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the Vice-Chancellor has a pivotal position as the Principal Executive officer who carries with him certain implied powers.
21. In the preceding paragraph, I have referred to the relentless challenge to the Ordinances. The Vice-Chancellor in the present case was compelled to invoke Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act, 1994 as respondent-University had to streamline the evaluation system with the ensuing March 2021 examinations. Therefore, under compelling reasons, the Vice- 22 Chancellor of the respondent-University having taken note of amended MCI Regulations introduced the impugned Ordinance. Having done so, the same was placed before the Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 which deliberated on the issue and approved the impugned Ordinance and the same is ratified by the Syndicate which is evident from Annexures-R3 and R4.
22. The petitioners though have alleged arbitrariness while promulgating Ordinance have failed to demonstrate arbitrariness. What is pleaded and argued before the Court is that the impugned Ordinance leads to discrimination. But, however, no materials are placed.
23. The impugned ordinance promulgated by respondent-University is approved by the Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 and the same is ratified by the Syndicate on 21.2.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned Ordinance is outrageous as it defies of logic or 23 moral standards. Nothing has been brought to my notice which prohibits the promulgation of impugned Ordinance. This Court is also of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish that the respondent-University has adopted unfair methods while promulgating the impugned Ordinance. It is also found that there are absolutely no materials to indicate the magnitude of impugned action so disproportionate that erratic evaluation would go unnoticed under the impugned Ordinance.
24. The respondent-University has taken all possible steps to revise and revamp the process to a great extent by introduction of digital evaluation system. The initial teething problems in conducting exams and evaluating the papers are eventually standardized. This Court has to bear in mind that there are hundreds of colleges with more than lakhs of students studying in various professional courses which comes under the umbrella of RGUHS. Every year, lakhs of answer scripts are evaluated in a single valuation and the number 24 becomes more than double after deviation valuation. If these factual aspects are taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that enormous amount of paper work and human resources are utilised for a seamless work flow. This Court has to also bear in mind the manner in which the respondent- University utilises its entire human resources who work tirelessly without withering to give the results and these results are with just a click of mouse button on computers and other electronic mobile gadget screens.
25. The respondent-University has also come out with a software which is programmed to auto-detect marks difference equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper in general valuation after the second valuation where two valuation system is adopted for UG students. This auto-generated deviation report will further automatically allows the third valuation which are eligible for deviation evaluation. 25
26. The Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 which deliberated on the issue has approved the Ordinance and the same is ratified by the Syndicate. The Academic Council is the principal academic body of the respondent-University and exercises its general supervision over the academic policies of the University. The Committee of Academic Council has deliberated on the issue in regard to adoption of two valuation system for undergraduate students and has also looked into the deviation valuation in the event marks difference is equal or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed. The counsel appearing for the petitioners while arguing the case did make a feeble attempt in questioning the deviation method adopted under the impugned Ordinance and contended that the marks difference has to be between the two evaluators and not against maximum marks prescribed. This Court is unable to accede to such an argument. The academic policies have to be revised, reviewed by a competent Committee of Academic council. The 26 Ordinance under challenge is approved by the Committee of Academic Council and later it was placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate comprises of various experts and includes the Vice-Chancellor, Secretary to Government, in-charge of Health and Family Welfare, the Secretary to Government in-charge of Medical Education and also includes the Directors of Health and Family Welfare, Medical Education and Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy, Karnataka, the Presidents of Karnataka Chapter of the Indian Medical Association, Karnataka Medical Council and three persons elected by the Senate amongst themselves. The Syndicate also comprises of a Professor nominated by a Vice-Chancellor and two heads of University and a nominee from an autonomous Government Medical institute and three experts in the field of health science and other nominated persons from among the eminent persons in the field of health science. The Syndicate has also ratified the Ordinance under challenge. 27 Ordinance questioned on the ground of discrimination:
27. The petitioners are insisting that respondent- University should apply the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the respondent- University and therefore are contending before me that they are entitled for four valuation as contemplated for PG students. The Ordinance is attacked on the ground that it leads to discrimination. The strength of undergraduate students cannot be matched with that of Post Graduate students. The Academic Council has approved the double valuation system and the same is ratified by the Syndicate. The Medical Council of India which is also an Advisory Board has also approved it with a direction to the respondent- University to conduct exams in terms of Amended 2019 Regulations of the Graduate Medical Education. The respondent-University is not accountable to the Courts in respect of policies relating to academics. However, the respondent-University is accountable for legality of such 28 decisions. Any academic policy, unless it is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary or is violative of any constitutional provision cannot be a subject matter of judicial review. The petitioners cannot insist that respondent- University should adopt four valuation system that is applicable to PG students. There cannot be discrimination among different classes. The petitioners have not placed any material which would indicate that the impugned Ordinance is violative of Article 14 and the same leads to discrimination. The burden is on the petitioners who are complaining of discrimination. The rule of parity is equal treatment of equals in equal circumstances. The circumstances which govern one set of persons may not necessarily be the same as governing another set of persons. In the light of the above said principle, this Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioners who have failed in subjects can insist the respondent-University to adopt the formula applicable to PG students. The claim made by the petitioners is unreasonable. 29 Scope of Judicial Review:
28. The respondent-University is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be necessary to maintain standard of education or in a given situation to enhance the standard of education. Therefore, the Constitutional Courts cannot be expected to presume that the Ordinance setting up a particular method of evaluation is unconstitutional nor the Courts can substitute their own opinion as against an expert's opinion which is ratified by a competent authority.
29. If the significant details referred to in the preceding paragraphs are taken into consideration, the petitioners have failed to make out a case indicating on what grounds the Ordinance stands vitiated. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the Court cannot usurp or abdicate the parameters of judicial review and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and acceded. 30
30. The Apex Court in Basavaiah(Dr.) .vs. Dr.H.L. Ramesh(2010) 8 SCC372has held as follows:-
"28. The scope of interference in academic matters has been examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC372: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640, the Court held as under:-
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
The Supreme Court in another judgment reported as University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC519 held that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts of the Court. The Apex Court has held as under:
31. /p>
"31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR1965SC491 Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC546 and, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC284 has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.9729 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12147 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12218 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12403 of 2018 opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
32 The Apex Court in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC726 has held as under: “16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in.” Further, at Paragraphs 26 to 27 has observed thus:
"26. This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain this court held: [(2007) 4 SCC737 para 16]. 33 “16….Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review…
27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.
31. If the Committee of a Academic Council and the Syndicate of the respondent-University have acted in a fair manner and if the Ordinance is free from the taint of unreasonableness, there is no scope for judicial review. Policy 34 decisions in the matters affecting the policies and administration relating to medical courses should be rather left to the wisdom of experts formulating the policies relating to maintaining standard of education in the field of medicine. The present Ordinance under challenge thoroughly contains an academic element and therefore, this Court cannot encroach upon and test the wisdom of experts and also encroach into the inherent jurisdiction of experts body who are vested with power to revive, revamp the policies relating to the academics.
32. The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala .vs. N.M.Thomas reported in (1976) 2 SCC310has held that discretion is the essence of classification. Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. The doctrine of equality founded under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is amongst equals. Classification is, therefore to be founded 35 on substantial differences which distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. This equality of opportunity cannot be confused by equating different class of groups. In the present case on hand, the petitioners are insisting that the respondent-University should also adopt four valuation system to the Undergraduates. This Court is unable to understand as to how the policies which are formulated to conduct exams in respect of PG students can be adopted to the UG students also. There is no discrimination among equals as PG students constitute a totally different class and the magnitude of the students pursuing UG course cannot be compared to those pursuing PG course. Therefore, the policy in regard to evaluation of answer scripts of UG students would stand on totally different footing. This Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioners who have failed in subjects can question the Ordinance and also suggest as to how the evaluation of 36 the papers has to be conducted by the respondent-University. Any indulgence by this Court in this regard would only lead to catastrophe and would lead to compromise to standards in medical education.
33. This Court is also not inclined to entertain the claim made by the students as to how the deviation valuation is to be adopted. The petitioners claim that while determining deviation, the respondent-University should take into consideration the difference in award of marks between two valuations and not difference in award of marks between two valuators as against maximum marks prescribed for the paper. I am unable to understand as to how the petitioners can insist that the deviation valuation has to be done in a particular manner when more particularly the Committee of Academic Council, the Syndicate and also the Advisory Board of Medical Council of India have approved the method of double valuation system and also have approved the deviation valuation. 37
34. The medical students are placed at a higher pedestal on account of their crucial role in the health care system of the society. Therefore, the students who are pursuing medicine have to maintain high academic integrity. Medical students have to work hard and earn their degrees in a fair and honest way by putting in the hours to study and complete assignments. Then only the students can gain the good worth of medical education and would contribute a lot to the health care system of the society. Maintaining academic integrity while earning a medical degree represents true academic accomplishments. It is this credibility and work ethics which would take a medical doctor a long way at his work place and at the end of the day it is the patient who would benefit. Therefore, medical students cannot insist for lowering the education standards and therefore, the challenge to the impugned Ordinance has to fail.
35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court would draw the following conclusions:
38. (i)The impugned Ordinance dated 1.2.2021 is promulgated by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13(2) of RGUHS Act. (ii)The notification was placed in the meeting of the Committee of Academic Council held on 1.2.2021 and the same is approved by the Committee. The Ordinance so introduced by the respondent-University which is approved by the Committee of Academic Council is ratified by the Syndicate on 21.2.2021. Therefore, the Ordinance under challenge was not only passed in consultation with the Academic Council but the same is approved by the Committee of Academic Council and consequently, it is ratified by the Syndicate. (iii)The new policy of assessment of the answer scripts of UG students is as per the MCI Advisory. (iv)The impugned Ordinance under challenge is promulgated subsequent to the judgment rendered by the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.31555/2019 wherein this 39 Court reserved liberty to the respondent-University to re- promulgate similar ordinance. In the very same judgment, the Co-Ordinate Bench was also of the view that the Regulation on Graduates Medical Education (Amendment) 2019 can be made only applicable to the courses commencing from the Academic Year 2019-20 onwards and the Regulations are held to be prospective in nature. (v) Petitioners have taken admission for the academic year 2019-20 and therefore, the petitioners are bound by the amended 2019 Regulations. (vi)Though the petitioners have pleaded discrimination and have also alleged arbitrariness, no materials are placed on record to indicate the same. Nothing has been brought to my notice which prohibits the promulgation of impugned Ordinance. The petitioners have failed to establish that the respondent-University has indulged in adopting unfair means while promulgating the Ordinance. 40 (vii)There is no material to indicate that the magnitude of the impugned action under new Ordinance is so disproportionate that erratic valuation would go unnoticed. There is absolutely no material on record indicating any glaring aberrations which would warrant judicial review at the hands of this Court.
36. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly, stand dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-