The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.47/2021 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.462/2021 (EDN-RES) IN W.A. No.47/2021: BETWEEN: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041 REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 2. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADV.,) AND: 1. DR. SIBI MATHEWS D/O MATHEW SAMUEL AGED 31 YEARS REG NO 16 ME 778 R/O THENGUMPALLI HOUSE ANJILIPURA, THATTARMPALAM (POST) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 MAVELIKARA, ALLEPPY KERALA 690103. 2. DR. PROJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE S/O PRODYUT KUMAR MUKHERJEE AGED 28 YEARS REG NO 16MG382 R/O FLAT NO S 1 JAYASREE COMPLEX 61/8, NELLURAHALLI, WHITEFIELD BANGALURU 560066. 3. DR. K.R. SOWMYA KRISHNA D/O K. VENUGOPALA KRISHNA AGED 28 YEARS REG NO 16MO251 R/O NO 218, MIG PHASE II HUDA COLONY, MUSHKMAHAL ATTAPUR, HYDERABAD 500064. 4. DR. YATHEESH K S S/O K. SIDDAIAH AGED 46 YEARS REG NO 11MP003 R/O NO 280, IIIRD CROSS NEAR GANESH TEMPLE BRINDHAVANA EXTENSION MYSORE 57020. 5. DR. KADIRI ANUSHA D/O DR. SEETHARAMAIAH AGED 30 YEARS REG NO 15M379 R/O NO 27, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET CUBBONPET, BANGALURU 560002. 6. DR. RAHUL SHARAD MAGAR S/O SHARAD MADHAV MGAR AGED 32 YEARS REG NO 17DL127 R/O PLOT NO 4, PRIYANKA SHIVASAGARNAGAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 BHUSANNAGAR LINK ROAD MAHARSHTRA 414005. 7. DR. NEKAT TABASSUM S/O MOHAMMED SULAIMAN AGED 38 YEARS REG NO 14MO430 R/O DR. JAVED SULAIMANI ORD DENTAL CLINIC OPP STYLE UP, CINEMA ROAD GOPALGANJ, BIHAR 841423. 8. DR. VINAY C. DURGAD S/O CHANDRASHEKAR DUGGAD AGED 28 YEARS REG NO 16MG253 R/O 189, 4TH D CROSS COFFEE DAY ROAD, KASTURINAGAR BANGALORU 560043. 9. DR. SHEETAL
Legal Reasoning
D/O SRINIVASA RAO K AGED 27 YEARS REG NO 147, 4TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALURU 560079. 10. DR. NAVEEEN KUMAR SALUTAGI S/O DR. RAUTAPPA N. SALUTAGI AGED 29 YEARS RE NO 16YG781, R/O GA525 DHRUVA ENCLAVE IBS ROAD HAL OLD TOWNSHIP, VIMANAPURA POST BANGALURU 560043. 11. DR. FARIDA ASMA D/O AMANULLA SHARIFF AGED 43 YEARS REG NO 16MY003, R/O NO 10 BHAVANESHWARINAGAR 14TH CROSS, R T NAGAR BANGALURU 560032. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 12. DR. NIDHI .S D/O SIDDUSWAMY D AGED 32 YEARS REG NO 12 YA776 R/O SUKURA NILAYA D/NO.3/136/15, DIVYA NAGAR JYOTHINAGARA CROSS ROAD KUNJAITHBAIL POST, MANGALURU 575015. 13. DR. SAI SHASHANK D S/O DR. SREENIVASULU DASARI AGED 31 YEARS REG NO 16MR531 R/O PLOT LNO 226, PRASUSHAN NAGAR JUBILIHILLS, HYDERABAD TELANGANA 500033. 14. DR. JAYALALLTH S. MAROL D/O SHANKARALINGA MAROL AGED 30 YEARS REG NO 17DC726, R/O NO 412 RESIDENT QUARTERS KEMPEGOWDA HOSPITAL KRISHNARAJENDRA ROAD VISHWESHWARAPURA, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALURU 560004. 15. DR. PRANAV DESHPANDE S/O LATE RAVINDRA N. DESHPANDE AGED 29 YEARS REG NO 17DC501 R/O NO A 1303, VAISHNAVI NAKSHATRA APARTMENTS, NEAR YESHWANTHPUR METRO STATION, YASHWANTHPUR BANGALORE 560022. 16. DR. POL ARINDAM ARJUN S/O ARJUN S POL AGED 33 YEARS REG NO 15MR780 R/O AASHIRVWAD, PLOT 74 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 SECTOR 6, KAPAR KHAIRANE NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400709. 17. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POCKET 14, SECTOR 8 DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 18. DR. KANDURI MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE KANDURI CHINNAPPA AGE 36 YEARS OCCN -P.G.STUDENT (MS-GENERAL SURGERY) NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE RAICHUR, REG.NO.16YG402 R/H NO.7-110/1, STATION ROAD KOTHAKOTA MANDAL KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT-509 381 TELENGANA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADV., FOR R1 TO R16 SRI. N. KHETTY, ADV., FOR R17 SRI. D.K. RAVINDRA, ADV., FOR R18) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 51654/19, 51655/19, 51656/19, 51657/19, 51658/19, 51659/19, 51661/19, 51662/19, 51664/19, 51680/19, 51722/19, 51728/19, 392/2020, 393/2020, 402/2020 AND 2503/2020 AND DISMISS THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 IN W.A. NO.462/2021: BETWEEN: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BEGNALURU-560041 REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR. 2. REGISTRAR EVALUATION RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560070. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADV.,) AND: 1. DR. AKSHATHA .H D/O NIRANJAN .H AGED 28 YEARS REG NO 17YG578 R/O NO.143, SUMUKHA TEJASWINI NAGAR, S.O.S. POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560076. 2. DR. SHILPA VIJAYA KUMAR D/O MR. V.S. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 26 YEARS REG NO 17MO303 R/O NO.T1, G BLOCK M.V.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL, HOSKOTE BENGALURU-562114 PERMANANET R/O NO 14-F NIKUNJAM FORTUNE, JAWAHAR NAGAR KILIWAD P.O., - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 THIRUVANTHAPURAM KERALA-695003. 3. DR. KRUTHIKA R. RAMPURE D/O MR. VIKRAM NAGATHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS REG NO.14ME478 R/O C/O BASAVARAJ RAMPURE BLOCK NO.16 FLAT NO.12 NANDI GARDEN PHASE-2 AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA MAIN ROAD J P NAGAR, 9TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 108. 4. DR. PALLAVI D/O MR. MRINAL AGED 30 YEARS REG. NO. 17M0301 R/O NO.303 THE STRATTON PARK APARTMENT R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560094. 5. DR. SMRITI D/O DR. R.K. THAKUR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS REG NO. 17MC778 R/O ROOM NO. 82 T O WING KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL HOUSE I I T ROORKEE, ROORKEE UTTARAKHAND-247667. 6. DR. DHRUBAJYOTI DEY S/O KALYAN KUMAR DEY AGED 34 YEARS REG.NO.17YG454 R/O NO.65, RAKHAL GHOSH ROAD P.O.HARINAVI, DISTRICT-SOUTH 24 PARGANA, KOLKATA-700148. 7. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8 DWARAKA PHASE 1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 NEW DELHI110077 REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADV.,) - - - ...RESPONDENTS THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DTD 14.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.12342/2020, 12344/2020, 12344/2020, 12346/2020, 12347/2020 AND 12348/2020 (EDN) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN WRIT PETITION NOS. AND DISMISS THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) These writ appeals are filed by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences being aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 2. We have heard Sri.Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior counsel as instructed by Advocate Sri.B.S.Sachin appearing for the appellants as well as Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents quite at length. 3. The writ petitions were filed challenging the University ordinance dated 07.01.2019 which prescribed eligibility criteria for UG/PG Examiner in variance with MCI Regulations governing such eligibility. The further ordinance dated 29.03.2019 governing evaluation of answer scripts for post graduate courses including PG Diploma in Super Speciality courses was also under challenge insofar as post graduate medical courses are concerned. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions advanced, came to the conclusion that the ordinances insofar as they were in variance with the MCI Regulations were bad in law. The following directions were issued: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 "11.1. In view of the above discussion and reasoning: 11.1.1. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the Ordinance on eligibility criteria for becoming UG/PG examiner notification dated 07.01.2019, insofar as Post Graduate Medical Courses. 11.1.2. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the Ordinance governing post postgraduate including PG diploma and super-specialty, answer scripts evaluation dated 29.03.2019 insofar as the Post Graduate Medical Courses. 11.1.3. By issuance of mandamus, the University is directed to conduct a fresh evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners by appointing examiners strictly in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Medical Council of India within four weeks from today and to announce the results within two weeks thereafter. 11.1.4. Parties to bear their own costs." 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it had been specifically urged before the learned Single Judge that though the ordinances were apparently at variance with MCI Regulations, as a matter of fact, the evaluators for the theory and practical papers had been engaged specifically in tune with the criteria prescribed by the MCI Regulations - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 and that the evaluation had been carried out strictly in accordance with the MCI Regulations. It was submitted
Decision
that in all, but two of the writ petitions, the entire matter has become infructuous insofar as the students had attempted the examination again and had successfully cleared the examination. It is submitted that in respect of two of the candidates, they could not clear the examination in spite of repeated attempts and that they had thereafter abandoned the examinations as well. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that pursuant to orders passed by this Court in these writ appeals, memos had been filed on 05.11.2024 and later on 22.11.2024 supported by affidavits of the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University. It is submitted that the entire procedure with regard to the evaluation of the answer scripts as well as the practical evaluation had been specified in the affidavit filed by the Registrar (Evaluation). It is submitted that the details of the results, status of the petitioners along with the details of the evaluators who had evaluated the answer scripts has been placed on - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 record. It is submitted that pursuant to further orders passed by this Court, the co-relation between the results of the petitioners and the evaluators who conducted the evaluation are also placed on record. It is further submitted that the ordinance which have been set aside by the learned Single Judge have subsequently been replaced by other ordinance in tune with the MCI Regulations. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, contend that though most of the petitioners have passed the examination in succeeding attempts, two of such petitioners had not so passed and are awaiting the result of these writ appeals. It is further contended that there still is no co-relation with regard to the evaluators and the examinees in respect of theory papers since the memo dated 22.11.2024 did not provide proper co-relation for the details of the evaluators who evaluated the answer scripts of the examinees who are the writ petitioners. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 6. We have perused the affidavits and the memos placed on record. We have also considered the contentions advanced on either side and have given our anxious consideration to the material on record. We notice that the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants specifically submits that the ordinance promulgated by the University insofar as they are at variance with MCI Regulations, have not been acted upon by the University and that the University had selected the evaluators strictly in accordance with the MCI Regulations. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the evaluation was conducted by evaluators which were duly qualified by MCI Regulations, the direction No.3 issued by the learned Single Judge is an exercise in futility. It is submitted that the examinations in question were those taken by the students in May and November of 2019 and in May of 2020 and that an attempt to re-evaluate the answer script at this distance of time is absolutely unwarranted. In view of the fact that the material on record would show that the evaluators were duly qualified under the MCI Regulations - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 such an exercise is not required at all. It is submitted that in respect of the examinations conducted in May 2020 are concerned, the Advisory had been issued in 22.05.2020 specifically restricting the number of evaluators in view of Covid restrictions prevalent at the relevant time. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that in the light of the materials which are placed on record, the contention that the evaluators were fully qualified under the MCI Regulations is liable to be accepted. The Required co-relation also is shown with regard to the evalutators and their qualifications. The further contention that the tables provided show only the total experience of the evaluators cannot be accepted in view of the specific averments in the affidavit filed by the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University. The affidavit placed on record specifically answers the contentions raised by the writ petitioners in the batch of writ petitions. The Registrar (Evaluation) of the University specifically states on oath as under: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 "3. I submit that as borne out from the records, there is no specific resolution passed by the University for not to implement the Notification dated 7.1.2019. However since the said Notification was not in consonance with the amended MCI Regulations, the appointment of PG examiners in respect of all the Medical PG examinations was being done as per the amended MCI Regulations i.e., two external and two internal examiners and the examiners so appointed are duly recognised PG Teacher with minimum teaching experience as per the amended MCI guidelines since the same governs the field. This fact could be further proved by fact that the Petitioners answer scripts were evaluated by duly qualified PG Teachers having requisite minimum teaching experience as per the MCI Guidelines. In fact, as contended in the statement of objections already filed, the above said Notification dated 7.1.2020 was duly replaced by the Notification dated 29.6.2020, a copy of which is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as Document-1. 4. As regards the impugned Notification dated 29.3.2019, Annexure-F is concerned, the same governs the procedure and mode for evaluation and computation of results of PG theory answer scripts and procedure for evaluation by a 5th examiner in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 the event of a deviation of more than 15% and also for rounding off of fractions etc. The examination of the Petitioners was governed by the said procedures. 5. I submit that the process of appointment of internal and external examiners are concerned, the University has in its website maintains an Online Database of Faculty which has to be updated from time to time by the Principals of all affiliated Colleges giving the details of the faculty members. Based on the information of teachers so updated, the Board of Studies lists out the eligible PG Examiners as per MCI Guidelines which list will then be sent to the Board of Appointment of Examiners (BOAE) which will prepare a list of Examiners and submit the same to the authorities for approval. Thereupon the authorities will approve and appoint the Panel of Examiners. This entire procedure is governed by the Ordinance Board of Appointment of Examiners. True copy of the said Ordinance is produced herewith as Document-II for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 6. Even the External Examiners are also appointed by BOAE in the same manner. However, the faculty of external examiners who qualify the eligibility criteria as per MCI Guidelines are normally suggested by Dean of Faculties or by Vice- Chancellor on consultation and invitation for the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 purpose of empanelling them as Examiners. Thus a Data base of Internal and external examiners are prepared and kept for the purpose of evaluation of PG Answer scripts. 7. I submit that the entire evaluation process right from the scanning, allocation answer booklets, awarding of marks by evaluators till the computation of results of a particular examination is digitalised and the process if foolproof and confidential. The examination of all the disciplines is conducted by adopting the same procedure. A brief procedure of the process adopted is as under; a) Theory Examination examinations will be conducted as per schedule at the designated examination centres. b) Each answer booklet will have a unique bar code and subject code/Question paper code. Immediately after the completion of theory exams identity of the booklet is removed. And the identity of answer booklet will remain unknown till the completion of computation of results. c) After conclusion of the examination, each answer booklet will be scanned either at the exam centre or at the University after the process of quality check. The scanned answer booklet will be stored in the servers. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 d) The eligible evaluators (external and Internal) from the approved panel for every subject will be enabled for evaluation. e) On screen evaluation is conducted by the evaluators at the designated evaluation centres who are provided with login ID's, Passwords and OTP's. f) As and when any evaluator logs-in for evaluation, the computer randomly selects the answer script from pool of available answer scripts along with the relevant Question Paper Code which will be uploaded and displayed on screen for evaluation. Each marks awarded by the evaluator for each of the question will be simultaneously recorded in the server. g) Thereafter the result will be digitally computed." 8. Having considered the said contentions as also in view of the affidavits and the memos placed on record which provide the identity and the qualification of the evaluators as well as their experience in the post held by them, we are of the opinion that the further contention with regard to lack of co-relation is ill-founded. The writ appeals are therefore bound to succeed to the limited extent of setting aside the direction issued by the learned - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:421-DB W.A. No.47/2021 C/W W.A. No.462/2021 Single Judge at paragraph 11.1.3 of the impugned judgment. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeals are partly allowed. The direction issued at paragraph 11.1.3 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shall stand set aside. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35