_1....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08*" DAY OF DECEMBERTé..2'O:1'O"D;'~_:"'V.
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRLJUSTICE-S;'AI3.DU?L
WRIT PETITION NO.32I62 OE2é_'1
BETWEEN:
MS. PRIYA J _
DAUGHTER OF M JAYARAMAN '
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS __ ' ' '
RESIDING AT ROOM NO. 100:.
J.S.S.1\/IEDICAL CQLLEGEwL-AD'!.ES-HOSTEL
BANNIMANTAP, S. 'S vN_AG:AR,
MYSORE--5 " 2 1 '
[By 'é£jVvOaO~;._O.,AD'\5S;')
I. THERAJIV GANDI II UNIVERSITY
OF' HEALTH SCIENCES
; 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR.
»'-QBANGALORE 560 G4
BY"ITS"\.[ICE » CHANCELLOR
I , ' (EVALUATION)
" ;RAJF_vf.GI'\NDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
V ' SCIENCES. 4TH T BLOCK.
JAYANAGAR.
BANGALORE -- 560 04
2+
2 THE J S S MEDICAL COLLEGE
__rI3ANNIIvIANTAP
S S NAGAR.
MYSORE A 5
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
PETITIONER
4. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
SECTOR 8. POCKET I4.
DWARAKA -- I ._
NEW DELHI - 110
REPTD. BY MEDICAL COUNCIL
OF INDIA. _ " ~.
[By Sri N K RAMESH. ADV. 'FORRI SI R'?
SRI NRHETFY, ADV. FoR'Rg4 I '~
SRI F:.SHASHII:IRAN SHE'I"-I'§I".- FOR' RSI-V
THIS WRIT PE2'1'ITION IS FILED' UND.ER P.-RTICLE 226 AND
227 oF THE CoNS'I'1TUTI.oN-.oF._ INDIA PRAYING To DIRECT
THE RI a To 'PRODUCE - THE FEIITIONERS
oToRHINoLoR'YNi:;O'LoC.Y ANSWER SCRIPT To THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN _OR'DER__:r_o 'ExANI.I.NE-.:'THE DIFFERENCE IN MARKS
OBTAINED BE'T_W'{13EN"T|THE=I§"IRST,¢3I SECOND EVALUATION.
'I'HIS_-- '*":--«v.PEfTI*I"IoN..__COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
I-IEARING *13"G_RoUP. DAY. THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING: , S
=I g*GRDER
I;>_1?IaxI_e heaT'c1~----t--he learned Counsel for the parties.
C _2v,:_The:f)e.tit.ioner had appeared for the 111 Phase of
Exaihtihation in the month of June, 2010. In the
Said examination She had failed in one Subject, namely
'QtOI7hino1aryngo1ogy'. Therefore. She has filed this writ
Km
,
_. 3 _.
petition for a direction to the respondent Univeifsfiiy to
refer the answer scripts for the third eXamine~r~.-. .
3. Sri N .K.Ramesh, learned
the 151 respondent University Asiibmits inji
general valuation, the firstVi’i’vr.:\.ra}1,iVer dawafgrded 37
marks and 21′”? 1′-4£u../Aihaarks Mont of 100
marks. The difference. awarded by
the two marks obtained
by the petitior;:er’é.was rounded off to 43. It
is oniy: in award of marks between
the twod\’xapli,1ers Valuation is 15% or more
of the prescribed for the paper, the
has to be referred to a third examiner.
<Th'ere is merit in the contention of the learned
for the 15* respondent University. The
,f_.Ordirianee at Annexure»»D prescribes procedure for
revaluation. It states that all the answer scripts
wherein difference in award of marks between two
_ 4 _
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, such papers a1one'"have
to be referred to a third examiner. In the
the difference in award of marks between.Vtvifo.e.vaI.i'iers "inf _&
the general valuation is 11%.
script of the petitioner iI1Vre_spect—-Aof».the
cannot be referred to a thirdvfmhatitier. cannot
direct the UniVers1t§;;_.”‘~to .refer” t_h.e’~-.answe’r “script in
question to a third exarifiiner_Vcont;rai-yT_’to-Vthe Ordinance
governing re’–ir_ai_uatio*n§ _ *
“5,At th’is_fs’tfage’, learned Advocate for the petitioner
thatviiiie petitioner may be permitted to pay the
1′.eXamiiiatviori.’V;”fee for her appearance in the ensuing
exfa’minatiior1 in the above subject. 1 direct the 151
‘respondent University to permit the petitioner to pay the
7exarninat.ion fee for her appearance in the failed subject
it “referred to above and allow her to appear for the
it
-5…
ensuing examination. Writ petition stands distfini$Sr:d
with the above Observations. No costs.
KLY/