ORDER
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Issue rule.
2. Since the common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent University to refer their answer scripts of the examination in Phase III paper II conducted in March 2004 to a third valuer and thereafter declare their result.
4. The petitioners have appeared for Phase III Part II of the M.B.B.S., examination in March 2004. They have failed in the said examination in one subject or the other.
5. Sri N. Devadas, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the marks awarded between the first valuer and the second valuer is less than 20%. All of them have failed by small margins in different subjects. He further submits that the Parents’ Association of the respondent- University filed a Writ Petition in W.P. Nos.2905/2000 and 453/2000, challenging the ordinance No. UAORD 3/99/2000 dated 31.08.1999 wherein to qualify the answer scripts for referring to a third examiner, the difference in award of marks between the first valuer and the second valuer should be 20% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for that paper. The Division Bench by its Order dated 19.12.2003 has observed that in order to qualify for reference of the answer script to a third examiner, the marks awarded between the first and the second valuer should be more than 8% to 10%. He further submits that the Division Bench has left it to the Syndicate of the University to consider the said matter. Since the Syndicate of the University has not amended the aforesaid regulation, the answer scripts of the petitioners are required to be referred to a third valuer, since the petitioners have failed by a small margin. He has also relied on a decision in MASOOD UL HASSAN v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, W.P.No. 53216/2003 dd 17.2.04 in, wherein this Court has referred the answer scripts of the petitioner in the said case, who has failed by three marks, to a third valuer.
6. Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the University submits that the aforesaid regulation of the University has been held to be valid by this Court in the case of MOAZAM SHAH KHAN AND ORS. v. VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ORS., ILR 2002 KAR 1146 He further submits that the Division Bench in the case of THE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, WP.Nos.2905 & 453 of 2000 DD 19.12.2003 has affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge in Moazam Shah Khan’s case. He further submits that after the Orders in Parents’ Association case, the Syndicate of the University has not changed the said Regulations. Since the difference of marks obtained by petitioners is not more than 20%, their answer scripts do not qualify for reference to a third valuer.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.
8. There is no dispute that the difference between the marks awarded by the first valuer and the second valuer in the said examination is not more than 20%. The University in exercise of its power under Section 35(2) (d) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1984 has framed an ordinance governing double valuation of answer scripts. The said ordinance regulates the process of evaluation of answer scripts. They envisage valuation of each theory answer script by one internal and one external examiner although in exceptional cases, the scripts can be evaluated by two internal examiners drawn from the approved panel of examiners after obtaining prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The ordinance requires the examiners to evaluate the answer scripts independently and in cases where the difference in awarding the marks between the first and second valuer is 20% or more of the marks, the answer script has to be referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice Chancellor. The relevant ordinance is as follows:
ii) All answer script wherein the difference in award of marks between the first and second valuer is 20% or more of the maximum marks prescribed for that paper, shall be referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice- Chancellor chosen from the approved panel. The average marks of any two valuations close to each other shall be the final marks to be awarded for declaration of result. If the difference between any of the two valuations out of the three is same, then the award for declaration of result shall be chosen to the best advantage of the candidate. In all other cases, the average of the marks awarded by the first and second valuers shall be taken as final.
iii) No claim for paper seeing, retotalling or revaluation shall be entertained in these cases.”
9. In Moazam Shah Khan’s case (supra), this Court has upheld the said ordinance. The relevant portion is as follows:
“That leaves me with the only other question namely: Whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The university is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for revaluation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The university may also provide for revaluation and recognise the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such Scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the evaluation by one examiner followed by revaluation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate.”
10. In Parent’s Association case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge in Moazam Shah Khan’s case. The Division Bench has also observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the University and that when the ordinance is made by the syndicate of the University consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such policy, in the absence of arbitrariness. However, the Division Bench felt that the difference prescribed to qualify for reference to a third evaluator at 20% or more of the maximum marks is on a higher side. Therefore, the Division Bench suggested the Syndicate of the University to consider the matter afresh. However the Division Bench has not issued any direction in that behalf to the University. The relevant portion of the order upholding the ordinance is as follows;
“We endorse the said view. The procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of University. The Ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the University, which consists of Academicians and experts in the field of education. In the absence of arbitrariness, it is impermissible for Courts to interfere with such policy. The reasons for introducing double valuation is to avoid arbitrariness which may creep in, if the valuation is only by one Examiner. When there is independent valuation by two valuers valuing the answer scripts, it will bring in uniformity. The very knowledge that the papers are being valued by another examiner, will make each examiner to be more careful and responsible in evaluation. It also does away with the need to have revaluation, which is normally provided for if the valuation is only by one examiner. We are therefore of the view that the ordinance does not suffer from any arbitrariness.”
11. In Masood Ul Hassan’s case(supra), the petitioner had failed by three marks. A learned Single Judge has directed the University to refer the papers to a third valuer on the facts of the said case and without making the said order as a precedent.
12. In the case of KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY v. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW the Apex Court was considering the admission of students to the M.D./M.S. Course. The Apex Court observed that High Court cannot devise its own criterion for admission. It is further observed that High Court could not have introduced its own notions in such academic matter. The relevant observations are as follows;
“The High Court under Article 226 cannot ignore the rules framed by the Admission Committee; nor can it devise its own criterion for admission. It is a matter for decision of the academic body. If the academic body makes the marks obtained in M.B.B.S. examination the criterion, admission has to be made by such criterion. Where the academic body applies the rules bona fide manner to all the candidates equally, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal working of the academic institution. The High Court can neither relax or rewrite the rules, nor grant admission to a person who is appreciably below the required merit on ground of his having a diploma.”
13. It is well-established that this Court cannot direct the University to refer the answer scripts of the students/petitioners contrary to its own regulations. As noticed above, the ordinance governing evaluation of answer scripts has been upheld by this Court. Admittedly, the difference of marks obtained by the petitioners in their failed subjects between the first valuer and second valuer is not above 20%. In Masood Ul Hassan’s case, this Court has specifically stated that the said order should not be treated as a precedent. I am of the view that it is not permissible for this Court to give directions to University to refer the answer script to a third examiner contrary to the relevant ordinance. Giving such a direction would amount to relaxing or rewriting the ordinance made by the Syndicate of the University consisting of Academicians and experts in the field of education. The procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the University and this Court cannot introduce its own notions in such academic matters.
14. I do not find any merit in these Petitions. Accordingly, these Petitions are dismissed.
Rule discharged.