Akshay Gopal V.R. & Others v. The M.G. University & The Controller of Examinations & The Dean, M.O.S.C. Medical College

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/2ND MAGHA, 1935 ## **W.P.(C).No.15899 of 2010 (J)** --------------------------------------------------- ## PETITIONERS:- ---------------------- 1. AKSHAY GOPAL.V.R., S/O.V.V.RAJAGOPAL, - 29/1228 SREE LAKSHMI, PALLIMALAKUNNU KOTTOLI, CALICUT, PIN-673 016, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 2. ANURADHA M.PILLAI, - MADHURA HOUSE, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DIST., PIN-690 570, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 3. AOUS A.S., VADAKKE VEEDU, - KUNDUMON, VELICHIKKALA P.O., KOLLAM, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 4. ARSHA RAVEENDRAN.S., - SISHIRA HOUSE, KADAVATHUR P.O., VIA. CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 5. CHRISTINA ANN GEORGE, C/O.DR.P.P.GEORGE, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUTHEDATH, KAVUMTHAZHAM, PUTHENCRUZ, PIN-6832308, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 6. EBIN.T.VELLANIKKARAN, S/O.THOMAS.V.D., VELLANIKKARAN HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680125, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY ERNAKULAM. 7. JARISHA ALI, D/O.E.M.ALI MOOSA, J.J.HOUSE, PURANGU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679584, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C).NO.15899 OF 2010-J. **- 2 -** ## 8. JAYASHANKAR.V.A., VAKKATTIL HOUSE, KRISHNA, ASAN LANE, ALUVA-1, EKM, PIN-683101, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 9. JIGU S.KRISHN, AATHIRA, TM-2/26, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, WEST THALAP, KANNUR DISTRICT, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL, COLLEGE KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 10. JISHNU.N.JAYARAJAN, MENS HOSTEL 1, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682311, MBBS STUDENT. ## 11. JITHIN GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE C.P., - CHAYANANICKAL HOUSE, ATHIYODI P.O., KOORAACHUNDU, CALICUT DIST., PIN - 673 527, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 12. JITHIN REJI GEORGE, - 50/266 E, THANNIKAL HOUSE, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24, PIN-682 024, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ENRAKULAM. ## 13. JULIE ELIZABETH MATHEW, - PALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 14. KIRAN ZACHARIAH IKE, - KIRAN ZACHARIAH IKE, PULLIYIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686026, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 15. MOHAMMED JAMSHID V.P., - VELLATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELLUR, PAZHUR P.O., KUTTIPPURAM VIA, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679 571, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ENRAKULAM. 16. NIDHIN K.ALEX, CHUNGATHARA P.O., MAMPOYIL PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679334, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. 17. NIKITHA BABU, ORAMADATHIL HOUSE, MEKADAMPU P.O., KADATHY, PIN-682316, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C).NO.15899 OF 2010-J. **- 3 -** ## 18. NIMEELIYA ZABRIN, PADIYATH - PUTHENKATTIL HOUSE, C/O.FALGUNAN, NEAR MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, OPPOSITE PRABATH BAKERY, KOLENCHERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682311. 19. SREEDEVI.S., PUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, ASHRAM ROAD, KALADY P.O., MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 20. SRUTHY SURENDRAN, CHITHIRA HOUSE, - WEST PONNYAM P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, MBBS STUDENT, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. ## 21. VISHAL RAJ, MENS HOSTEL I, MOSC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682311. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA. RESPONDENTS:- - ---------------------------- ## 1. THE M.G.UNIVERSITY, - PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 650, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. ## 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, - MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. ## 3. THE DEAN, M.O.S.C.MEDICAL COLLEGE, - KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- ## W.P.(C).NO.15899 OF 2010-J. ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:------------------------------------- - EXT.P1(a) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P1(b) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P1(c) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(d) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(e) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 9TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(f) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 21ST PETITIONER. - EXT.P2(a) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(b) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(c) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(d) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(e) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 5TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(f) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 6TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(g) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 7TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(h) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 8TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(i) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 9TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(j) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 10TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(k) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 11TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(l) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 12TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. W.P.(C).NO.15899 OF 2010-J - 2 - - EXT.P2(m) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 13TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(n) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 14TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(o) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 15TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(p) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 16TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(q) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 17TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(r) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 18TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(s) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 19TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(t) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 20TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P2(u) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 21ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P3 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 22.03.2010. - EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE DATED 22.03.2010. - EXT.P5 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.03.2010. - EXT.P6(a) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(b) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(c) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(d) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(e) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. W.P.(C).No.15899 OF 2010-J - 3 - - EXT.P6(f) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 7TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(g) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 8TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(h) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 9TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(i) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 10TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(j) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 11TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(k) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 12TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(l) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 13TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(m) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 14TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(n) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 15TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(o) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 16TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(p) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 17TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(q) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 18TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(r) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 19TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(s) - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 20TH PETITIONER. - EXT.P6(t) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER BOOK OF THE 21ST PETITIONER. - EXT.P7 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2010. - EXT.P8 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.05.2010. W.P.(C).No.15899 OF 2010-J - 4 - EXT.P9 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS AWARDED TO PETITIONER NO.5. EXT.P10 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS TO THE PETITIONER NO.19. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- - EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO INITIMATING RESULT OF SCRUTINY TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, NAMELY, THE 5TH PETITIONER. - EXT.R1(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE MARK SHEETS IN TWO VALUATIONS. - EXT.R1(c) - TRUE COPYT OF THE SCHEME OF VALUATION WITH ANSWER KEY IN BIOCHEMISTRY PAPER I. - EXT.R1(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE REMARKS DATED 9.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY Dr.GOPINATHAN NAIR. - EXT.R1(e) - TRUE COPY OF THE REMARKS DATED 23.07.2010 SUBMITTED BY Dr.A.GEETHA. vku/- ( true copy ) ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------W.P.(C).No.15899 of 2010-J --------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners were 1[st] Year MBBS students, who are aggrieved by the non-consideration of an application for re-valuation given by them with respect to the papers in which they failed in the 1[st] Year MBBS examination, conducted by the 1[st] respondent-University in October, 2009. On publication of the results in March, 2010, it was disclosed that all of the petitioners herein had failed at least in one subject and most of them failed in the subject “Anatomy”. The petitioners then suspected a discrepancy in the valuation attempted and, hence, applied for re-valuation, as was allegedly permitted by the University. Their re-valuation applications are produced as Exhibits P6(a) to P6(t). However, the University had done away with the system of revaluation and introduced a double valuation system, as was recommended by the Standing Committee of the Syndicate and resolved at a special meeting of the Syndicate held on 25.08.2009. So much is evident from Exhibit P7. **- 2 -** WP(C).No.15899 of 2010-J 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri.George Thomas Mevada has two arguments to assail the denial of revaluation by the University. First, it is contended that Exhibit P7 is an order dated 14.01.2010 and the students had all appeared for the examination before the said order was published and, hence, their papers ought to have been revalued. It is also submitted that generally there is a good percentage in the 1[st] year MBBS examination and the failure ratio would be 6-7% which, in the subject year, rose upto 32%; thus raising a valid suspicion about the valuation conducted. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, however, would contend that though the order was published in January, 2010, in fact the decision was taken long prior to the examination and what is relevant is not the conduct of the examination, but the valuation as such, which was proceeded with and finalised as per the decision of the Syndicate taken on 25.08.2009. To substantiate the contention of double valuation having been undertaken, the University has filed an additional counter affidavit, producing the mark-sheets of one of the candidates in a subject in which the candidate failed and WP(C).No.15899 of 2010-J **- 3 -** explaining the procedure by which the double valuation and the further scrutiny by the Pass Board is undertaken. The learned Standing Counsel seeks to maintain that such revaluation cannot be attempted, especially since there is in place, a more comprehensive valuation system, as is evident from the double valuation indicated as per Exhibit P7. The learned counsel would also rely on the decision in _**West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das**_ **[2007 (4) KLT 535 (SC)],** where the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that no reassessment in the absence of statutory provision can be granted and it is not for the Courts to direct production of answer scripts to be inspected by the students, unless there is a glaring case made out by the students. 4. Evidently the double valuation system was introduced prior to the examination and the valuation was conducted in accordance with the double valuation system. The double valuation system, as is indicated in Exhibit P7, contains a comprehensive procedure by which the University, as resolved by the Syndicate, has attempted to reduce the probable consequence of the vagaries of examiners, resulting in wide **- 4 -** WP(C).No.15899 of 2010-J disparities in the marks awarded. The system of double valuation as indicated in Exhibit P7 is extracted hereunder: - “a) The existing System of revaluation may be dispensed with for MBBS/BDS courses and the system of double valuation may be introduced. - b) Each answer script shall be evaluated by two examiners and if the differences in mark is less than or equal to 20% in the case of BDS and less than or equal to 30% in the case of MBBS, the average of the two marks may be awarded. - c) If the difference in marks is more than 20% in the case of BDS and more than 30% in the case of MBBS, the script may be given for valuation by Pass Board and the average of the nearest two marks may be taken as the final marks. - d) If one of the marks stands exactly in midway between the other two, then that mark may be taken as the final marks. - e) The first examiner shall value the script and handover the same to the University/camp officer and then the same is given to the second examiner”. 5. On a reading of the system, the double valuation conducted by the University is not an empty formality. It takes into the disparity in the marks awarded by the two Examiners and contemplates a further scrutiny by the Pass Board. As has WP(C).No.15899 of 2010-J **- 5 -** been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel from the additional counter affidavit of the University and specifically Exhibits R1(a) to R1(e), on there being glaring disparity exceeding 30% (in the case of MBBS), the Pass Board calls for the comments from the Examiners and on the basis of this, the Pass Board, whose Chairman is the Controller of Examinations, goes into the individual cases and arrives at a decision, as has been indicated in Exhibit P7. In the context of there being a comprehensive system of double valuation and the system of revaluation having been specifically done away with, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or arbitrariness in the system carried on by the University, on the basis of which it has to be found that the rejection of revaluation is valid and proper. Even going by the afore-cited decision, this Court, sitting in judicial review, is not expected to look into academic matters and superimpose its own reasoning as against the reasoning of an academic body validly arrived at and carried on scrupulously. 6. The reduction in percentage of pass in the subject year pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel would, in fact, also lead to a probable conclusion that the same was on account WP(C).No.15899 of 2010-J **- 6 -** of the double valuation system which has been introduced, which, this Court has already found to be a more comprehensive system. In the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- ( true copy )