Achuth Mohan v. Kerala University of Health Sciences and Others

**WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** ACHUTH MOHAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O D.RAJ MOHAN, 'CHITHRAPOORNIMA' MANTHUKA P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689503 (UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NO.120021013) BY ADVS. THOMAS M.JACOB JERRY SEBASTIAN T.R ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680596 2 THE BOARD OF ADJUDICATION FOR STUDENTS GRIEVANCES, THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. PIN - 680596 3 THE GOVERNING COUNCIL KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 680596 BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a final year BDS Degree student pursuing his education in the PMS College of Dental Science & Research, Vattappara. He appeared for the Final BDS Degree Part-II Supplementary Examinations which was held in the month of May 2021. Out of four subjects in the theory examination, the petitioner failed to secure pass marks for the theory paper “Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry”. 2. In order to ascertain the reasons for his poor performance, the petitioner submitted a request for re-totalling and for issuance of copies of answer sheets and score sheets. Ext.P2 score sheet issued to him shows that the first evaluator awarded the petitioner 40 marks for the paper whereas the second evaluator awarded 46 marks. The average of the marks awarded by both the evaluators was taken and the petitioner was awarded 43 marks. 3. The petitioner contends that the manner of evaluation is not in tune with the regulations. Ext.P3 regulations issued by the KUHS provides for provisions for award of grace marks and if the petitioner had secured two more marks in the failed paper, he could have availed the benefit of grace marks and passed the BDS Course. **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **3** 4. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before the Board of Adjudication and pursuant to orders passed by this Court, his request was considered. However, by Ext.P6 order, his petition was dismissed by finding that the difference between first and second evaluation is not more than 15% and there are no exceptional circumstances for revaluation. The petitioner contends that his paper was entrusted with two Professors and they have issued Ext.P7 and P8 valuations, wherein they have awarded 47.5 and 48.5 marks for the very same paper. It is on the basis of the afore contentions that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order and quash Ext.P6 order. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or order directing the respondents to conduct third evaluation or fresh evaluation as provided in the BDS Regulation for the petitioners paper in ‘Paediatric & Preventive Dentistry’ in Final BDS Degree Part II Supplementary Examination 2021. 5. In the statement filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the regulations issued by the University, a process of double valuation is adopted for the answer books. The two evaluators shall value the paper and the average of marks is taken as the final mark of the student for that paper. If the marks obtained by the students in any one of the valuations is more than 35% of the total marks and if the variation in total marks awarded by the **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **4** two evaluators is more than 15%, the answer book is subjected to a third evaluation. The average of the highest two marks shall be taken as the final mark in those cases where the answer book is subjected to a third evaluation. It is stated that the petitioner had failed to secure the minimum of 50% marks required for a pass. According to the respondents, the assessment of a student in a Health Science course assumes great significance as society depends on his abilities while securing his services. The assessment system adopted by the University is to ensure a minimum standard for the health professional and it would not be advisable to lower the norms fixed for the assessment. 6. Sri. Thomas M. Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the valuation system adopted by the respondents is flawed. He would point out that the petitioner had availed the services of independent and reputed professors and after valuation, they had awarded 47.5 and 48.5 marks for the very same paper. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.P2 and it is submitted that there is variation in the marks awarded by the two evaluators. This was an exceptional cause as per the regulations to subject the answer book to a third evaluator. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in **M.G.University v. Millu Dandapani** [2000 (1) KLT 351] and it is submitted that this Court will be well justified in ordering the revaluation of the paper of the petitioner by an independent expert. **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **5** 7. Sri. Sreekumar, the learned Standing counsel would refute the contentions and it was submitted that the prayers sought for cannot be granted. He would point out that even the independent experts whose service was sought by the petitioner have not granted pass marks to the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced. The entire controversy revolves around the marks awarded to the petitioner for one paper in the final BDS Degree examination. I find that the Kerala University of Health Sciences has notified the regulations for Courses for Bachelor of Dental Surgery courses in the year 2016. Clause 1.15 (9) deals with Regulations for the conduct of Theory, Practical and Viva Voce Examination. The said clause reads thus : ## “ **9. Regulations for the conduct of Theory, Practical and Viva Voce Examination.** Practical and Viva voce shall be conducted as per the respective course regulations. For all Undergraduate courses double valuation of the Theory answer books shall be done by qualified examiners duly appointed by KUHS. Centralized Valuation camp shall be conducted in single/multiple centres. The average of marks obtained for double valuation of each paper (Question Paper (QP) code) is taken as the final mark of the student in that paper. If the variation in total marks obtained in two valuations is more than 15% of the total marks, provided the marks obtained in any one of the valuation is more than 35% of the total marks, the answer book shall undergo a third valuation in that paper (Question Paper (QP) code). In the case of answer papers going for third valuation the average of highest two **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **6** marks shall be taken as final mark. **KUHS shall not permit any revaluation.** However in exceptional cases, when recommended by the Board of Adjudication for Students Grievances for reasons to be recorded and on approval of Governing Council, fresh valuation may be conducted, after canceling the original valuations.” 9. I find that the answer books were evaluated by two evaluators without disclosing the identity and the marks awarded by the other evaluator. The marks awarded by an evaluator for a descriptive type question may be different from the marks awarded by another evaluator unlike in multiplechoice questions. In the case on hand, the first evaluator had awarded 40 marks and the second evaluator had awarded 46 marks and its average was taken. Even the independent evaluators employed by the petitioner have granted him only 47.5 and 48.5 marks whereas the marks required for the pass is 50. I find that the University has followed the regulations in its letter and spirit. When the marks awarded by the independent evaluators are also within 15% of the marks awarded by the University evaluators, the petitioner cannot justifiably demand that his paper should be sent for independent evaluation in the light of the precedent cited by the learned counsel. The respondents have clearly acted in terms of the Examination and Course Regulations, which provides for an inbuilt check to prevent gross disparity in the awarding of the marks. ## 10. In **Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda** **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **7** [2004 (13) SCC 383], it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that in the absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for revaluation of answer books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest, such a direction is to be avoided. It is also settled law that Courts should normally keep their hands off in issues involving academic matters. (see **Sanchit Banzal v. Joint Admission Board** , 2012 (1) SCC 157; **All India Council of Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan** , 2009 (11) SCC 726]. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. ## This Writ Petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** IAP **WP(C) NO. 1780 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1780/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF FINAL BDS DEGREE PART II SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATIONS, MAY 2021 OF THE PETITIONER BEARING REG NO. 120021013 DATED 3.09.2021. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF PETITIONER FOR THE SUBJECT PAPER 'PAEDIATRIC & PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY. - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS OF BACHELOR OF DENTAL SURGERY (BDS) 2016. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE PETITION SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.10.2021. - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2021 IN WP(C) 22379/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE GRIEVANCE PETITION. - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S PAPER IN PAEDIATRIC AND PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY, BY SUBJECT EXPERT, DR. AMBILI AYILLIATH, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PAEDIATRIC AND PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY, PONDICHERRY CENTRAL UNIVERSITY. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S PAPER IN PAEDIATRIC AND PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY, BY SUBJECT EXPERT, DR. JOHN PHILIP, FORMER READER, PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, PUSHPAGIRI COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL