D.Shankar v. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 07-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.10235 of 2009 andM.P.No.2 of 2009D.Shankar.. Petitioner.VersusTamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,rep. by its Registrar, No.69, Anna Salai,Chennai-32... Respondent.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records of the respondent herein in Lr.No.F XI(1)09391/2009, dated 23.3.2009, and quash the same and consequently,direct the respondent herein to revalue the answer paper of thepetitioner herein (Reg No.5205437) in the subject Community MedicinePaper-I and II and issue revised mark statement for III M.B.B.S.Part-Iexamination held in February, 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.RajasekaranFor Respondent : Ms.AL.GanthimathiO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the records relating tothe impugned letter of the respondent, dated 23.3.2009, andconsequently, to direct the respondent to re-value the answer papersof the petitioner in the Community Medicine Paper I and II and toissue the revised mark statement for III M.B.B.S. Part-I medicine heldin the month of February, 2009. 4. The petitioner has submitted that he had secured 67.3% and 67%in Part I and Part II of M.B.B.S Examinations, respectively. In twosubjects in which the petitioner had passed in Part-III of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.B.B.S. examinations, he had secured 65.3%. However, in the subjectCommunity Medicine Papers-I and II, he had secured 58% and had fallenshort by seven marks in the written examination to obtain a pass inthe subject. It has been submitted that even though the petitioner hadwritten the papers in Community Medicine, very well, he he had failedin the written examination by obtaining 113 marks, instead of theminimum passing mark of 120.5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that certain deficiencies were found in the valuation of the papersin the examinations, recently held, for the M.B.B.S course. In fact,150 students out of the total of 1400 students, who studied medicinein medical colleges had failed in one subject alone. This is anunusual thing that had happened and it requires thorough investigationand revamping of the evaluation system. 40 students out of 100students, from Kilpauk Medical College, had failed in the CommunityMedicine examination and 20 students of the 105 students, who hadappeared for the written examinations in the said subject had failed.In such circumstances, the Community Medicine Papers I and II of thepetitioner need a re-evaluation. However, the system of re-evaluationwhich was available up to the year 2008 had been dispensed with, fromthe year 2009, by the impugned letter of the respondent, dated23.3.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted thatthe Standing Academic Board does not have the power to dispense withthe re-evaluation system. It is only the Governing Council that isvested with such powers. Therefore, the impugned letter of therespondent, dated 23.3.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denyingthe averments and allegations made by the petitioner. It has beenstated that the valuation of the papers in Community Medicine has beendone by experts in the field and that before the declaration of theresults a Passing Board will scrutinise the results and recommend fortheir publication. There is nothing wrong in the system of valuation,as it exists. It has been further submitted that considering thevarious aspects involved in the system of re-evaluation, the StandingAcademic Board, which is the Apex body, with regard to the academicmatters, as per Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.MedicalUniversity, Chennai, Act, 1987, had resolved, in its 36th meeting heldon 23.12.2008, to abolish the system of re-evaluation. Even if thesystem of re-evaluation is restored, the petitioner would not beeligible for re-evaluation of his papers in Community Medicine, as itis not a break year and the petitioner is entitled to carry over thefailed subject in Part-I and obtain pass marks in the concernedpapers, before appearing for the final year Part-II subjects.Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner bycancellation of re-evaluation system. Further, the proposal of theStanding Academic Board, dated 23.12.2008, for dispensing with the re-evaluation system, had been approved by the Governing Council, on30.12.2008. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that it is the Governing Council that is empowered to take https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such decisions and not the Standing Academic Board, cannot becountenanced.7. Further, Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. MedicalUniversity, Chennai, Act, 1987, provides that there shall be aStanding Academic Board of the University, which shall, subject to theprovisions of the Act, the statutes and the ordinances, co-ordinateand exercise general supervision over the academic affairs of theUniversity. Section 43(1) of the Act states that the Governing Councilmay, from time to time, make ordinances and amend or repeal the same,pursuant to the powers vested in the Governing Council, under Section22 of the Act. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by thepetitioner is devoid of merits. 8. The learned for the respondent had relied on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HigherSecondary Education and Anr.Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors.(Manu/SC/0055/1984), wherein it had been held as follows:"Far from advancing public interest and fair play tothe other candidates in general, any such interpretation ofthe legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. Ashas been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Courtshould be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views asto what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academicmatters in preference to those formulated by professionalmen possessing technical expertise and rich experience ofactual day-to-day working of educational institutions andthe departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrongfor the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealisticapproach to the problems of this nature, isolated from theactual realities and grass root problems involved in theworking of the system and unmindful of the consequenceswhich would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposedto a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equallyimportant that the Court should also, as far as possible,avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutoryprovision, rule or bye-law which would bring about theresult of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It isunfortunate that this principle has not been adequately keptin mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case."9. The learned counsel for the respondent had also relied on adecision of the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Chairman,Bihar Public Service Commn. (2004(6) SCC 714), wherein it had beenheld as follows:"In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation ofanswer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in anexamination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask forre-evaluation of his marks. In such a situation, the prayermade by the appellant in the writ petition was whollyuntenable and the Single Judge had clearly erred in having https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. Adopting sucha course will give rise to practical problems and in thelarger interest, they must be avoided."10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of therecords available, this Court is of the considered view that thepetitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant thereliefs, prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition.The petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate the claimsmade by him, with regard to the valuation of the papers in the subjectCommunity Medicine of the M.B.B.S. course. Even though the system ofre-evaluation had existed up to the year, 2008, the petitioner wouldnot have been eligible to make a request for re-evaluation of thepapers in Community Medicine, as it was not a break year and since thepetitioner would be entitled to carry over the failed subject and toobtain pass marks in the said subject before appearing for the Part-IIfinal year subjects. Further, the proposal to dispense with the re-evaluation system had been made by the Standing Academic Board and ithad been approved by the Governing Council, which has the powers totake such decisions, in accordance with the provisions of the TamilNadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, Chennai, Act, 1987. Therefore, thewrit petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.No costs. cshSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar ToThe Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University,No.69, Anna Salai, Chennai-32.+ 1 cc to AL Ganthimathi, Advocate SR No.29285Writ Petition No.10235 of 2009RK(CO)SR/11.8.2009