IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6917 of 2008 Between: 1. M.Shanthi Swaroopa Hall Ticket No. 06347019, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 2. G.Naganandini Hall Ticket No. 06347006, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 3. Y.Vijaya Lakshmi Hall Ticket No. 06347013, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 4. S.Ravi Kumar Hall Ticket No. 06347028, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 5. K.Murali Krishna Hall Ticket No. 06347014, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 6. M.R.Suseela Hall Ticket No. 06347018, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. 7. M.Peru Naik Hall Ticket No. 06347022, 1st year B.Sc.(N) student of R.R. Christian College of Nursing, 42, Doctors' Colony, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Registrar, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 . The Executive Council, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the answer sheets of the petitioners in respect of the Micro-Biology subject of first year B.Sc. Nursing for revaluation/re-examination to the expert committee, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to valuate the answer sheets of the petitioners by the expert committee of Micro-Biology and declare results accordingly, forthwith, and pass such other ord er or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VADDI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.6917 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners are presently pursuing B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. They have appeared for the I year end- examinations conducted by the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (henceforth referred to as ‘the University’), in the month of December 2007, the results of which were published on 01-03- 2008. Out of 36 students, who have appeared for this examination from the College, where all the petitioners are pursuing, only 5 students have been declared to have passed the examination and the rest of the students have been declared to have failed in one or other subjects. However, when it came to the question of Microbiology subject, not a single student other than those 5 students mentioned supra, have been declared to have passed in the said examination. Since, there is a provision available for identification of the answer scripts and for re-totaling, the petitioners applied for the same. They were provided the opportunity to identify their answer scripts and they have also checked up the totaling thereof on 19-03-2008. After this exercise was completed, the students have drawn a very detailed representation and submitted the same on 19-03-2008. Notwithstanding too short a time span that has been permitted for each student to participate in the identification and re-totaling exercise by the University, the students have noticed some of the glaring irregularities that cropped up into the process of valuation and listed them out in their representation referred to supra. It is alleged by them that the answers furnished by them to some of the questions have not been valuated at all; for some of the questions, though valuated, no marks are awarded; for some questions ‘0’ marks are awarded unjustly and importantly, though the answer content for some of the questions being as nearly as it can be exhaustive, but nonetheless, marks are awarded in the range of 1 to 6 out of a maximum of 15 marks and further the valuation process is not in accordance with the scheme furnished by the University and that since it has been reported in a section of the Press that unqualified valuators have been found entrusted with the task of valuation and that the University itself has been proceeding against such unqualified individuals for participating in the evaluation process. The students also suspect that in the new scheme, which made departure from the old scheme of study, where Microbiology subject is tested along with Biochemistry, the valuators being familiar with the old scheme may have valuated their performance for a maximum of 38 marks only instead of keeping the maximum of 75 marks in view. The petitioners have also sought for the information relating to the details of the valuator apart from seeking a photocopy of their answers scripts under the Right to Information Act, by submitting the necessary fee therefor. Since, there was no immediate response to their representation dated 19-03-2008 from the University, they filed this writ petition seeking re-valuation of their answer scripts. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University and with his consent, the writ petition is heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, at my request, made available the answer scripts of the writ petitioners. The University had also deputed one of the Professors of the Microbiology attached to a local Medical College to assist the Court. The learned Professor had gone through the answer scripts of the writ petitioners, which are readily made available by the University, and was candid enough in pointing out that the valuation of the answer scripts examined by her are not in strict conformity with the scheme of evaluation furnished by the University itself and that the performance of the writ petitioners certainly deserves a re-look. Before embarking any further it will be worthy to examine the important Provisions of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act. With a view to secure efficient and systematic Education, Training and Research on the Allopathic and Indian Systems of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy and Nursing, the Act has been ushered in. In terms of Section 3, the University has been constituted with some of the important powers and functions conferred upon it. Amongst various powers conferred in terms of Section 5, the following are the important provisions for the present adjudication: (a) to formulate and maintain uniform curriculum and system of examinations for all the Medical Colleges in the respective systems of medicine and other institutions ; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. (g) to hold examinations and to confer honorary degrees or other distinctions under conditions prescribed; The Vice Chancellor is one of the several Officers notified under Section 10 of the Act. Subsection (2) of Section 12, while recognizing him as the Principal executive and Academic Officer of the University, entrusted him with such powers to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and also conferred on him the necessary power to give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University. Section 18 of the Act has listed out the various authorities of the University, which have been constituted and the principal amongst them being the Executive Council and the Academic Council. For the purpose of regulating the exercise of various powers and functions conferred upon various authorities, Statutes are empowered to be made on several matters and they were listed out in Section 30. It will be worthy to notice that Clauses 18 and 23 in Section 30 read as under: (xviii) the conditions and mode of appointment and duties of examining bodies and examiners ; (xxiii) the constitution, terms and references of the grievances committee for the employees and students of the University ; Thus, the entire exercise relating to the examinations liable to be conducted by the University, which, ultimately, leads to award of Degrees or Diplomas by it, is sought to be controlled by framing appropriate Statutes/Regulations in terms of Section 33. Section 30 has also recognized the need and necessity to constitute a Grievance Committee for the purpose of redressing the grievances nurtured by students and the employees of the University. Section 55 of the Act provides a right of appeal to every student and employee of the University aggrieved by any decision of any Officer or Authority of the University. Annesure II dealt with the Statutes framed by the University. Statute 5 deals with the powers exercisable by the Executive Council, while Statute 8, with the powers and functions of the Academic Council. It is worthy to notice that the Academic Council, which comprises of eminent academics of the University has been constituted to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters. It is obvious that the Academic Council is the competent authority to advise the various Officers and Authorities of the University on all matters concerning the academic pursuits undertaken in the University. The Act, obviously, had taken care to regulate various powers and functions liable to be discharged by the University and it’s various Authorities and Officers. Undoubtedly, the matters concerning conduct of examinations, the valuation of the performance of the students and the publication of their results are all matters, which exclusively fall within the domain of the expert academic bodies, such as the respondent University. They hardly provide scope or opportunity for a judicial review by a Constitutional Court. However, when large-scale irregularities are demonstrated to have taken place in the process of evaluation of the answers scripts of the students, it becomes an important matter, requiring specific focus and attention to be spared by all the concerned. While the University has been constituted and recognized by the Act as the Body entrusted with the job of conducting examinations and has been entrusted with the right to confer Degrees/Diplomas, it follows, that it is the University, which is the sole repository of such power, as a right to confer a Degree or Diploma partakes in its sweep the right to evaluate properly and correctly the performance of the candidate for determining his/her eligibility to seek the confermation of Degree or Diploma. When once an agency has been constituted and it has been entrusted with a grave and important matter such as conducting examinations and conferring Degrees upon successful candidates, it goes without saying that such exercise has got to be carried out strictly within the contours of the power conferred by the Statute and subject to the obligations thrown by Part –III of the Constitution, as well. Fairness of action and transparency of functioning are the basic requisites of every public body. Unless uniform and equal standards are set forth and such standards or yardsticks are again applied uniformly, the action of the University, even in matters of valuation of the answer scripts of a student, can yield to scrutiny. Lack of caprice and whimsical tendencies are liable to be inferred, on the part of the evaluators, but, at the same time it is a rebuttable presumption. In the instant case, except 5 students out of 36 students, who are prosecuting B.Sc. (Nursing) course from a college at Kurnool, all other students are said to have failed in the subject of Microbiology. If the performance of the students is below par, they cannot bamboose or pressurize the University to adapt liberal methods of valuation merely going by a statistical approach in the matter. But, at the same time, if the performance of the students were such that they do not deserve to be declared to have failed, any such declaration on the part of the University would certainly be unreasonable, if not irrational. No student, who has performed reasonably well, should be denied his legitimate claim to be declared to have passed the said examination. Equally, no student, who had performed below par, can also seek a declaration to have passed the subject, notwithstanding his performance, merely to maintain a decent statistical record. Between both these extremes, balance has got to be struck. Obviously, the University itself has become alive to the possibility of an element of subjectivity creeping in on the part of the evaluators when they are dealing with the process of valuation of answer scripts of the students. In an objective type of an examination, the prospects of a very precise answer being furnished is very high. In contrast, in a conventional method and mode of examination, the answer scripts have got to be evaluated with reference to the quality reflection of the examinee. There could be varying means and methods of bringing out such a quality. Therefore, there can also be an element of subjectivity creeping in the process. A value-based judgment, has got a reasonable tolerance for an error of judgment in the order limit of 5 to 10 per cent, plus or minus. But however, even with a view to eliminate any scope for such vagaries, the University has prepared a scheme of valuation and furnished the same, obviously, to the evaluators. Mere look at the Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Microbiology paper and the scheme of valuation prescribed by the University in this regard would highlight the point at issue. 1. Mention different methods of transmission of infection. Add a note on hospital infection. 2. Write on morphology and cultural characters of staphylococcus aureus. Add a note on diseases produced by staphylococcus aureus. 3. Name the different types of immunoglobulins. Draw a diagram of Immunoglobulin G and label. B.Sc.( Nursing ) DEGREE EXAMINATION – DECEMBER, 2007 FIRST YER EXAMINATION – 4 YDC MICROBIOLOGY (NEW SCHEME) SCHEME OF VALUATION 1.Mention different methods of transmission of infection. Add a note on hospital infection. 15 marks Ans. 1. Different modes of transmission a. Ingestion b. Inhalation c. Parenteral d. Sexual e. Contact f. Penetration g. Bites 2. HOSPITAL INFECTION 10 marks Sources Systems involved Organism commonly involved Special mention about MRSA Pseudomonas Drug resistance 2.Write on morphology and cultural characters of Staphylococcus aureus. Add a note on deseases produced by Staphylococcus aureus. 15 marks 1. Morphology 3 marks 2. Cultural Characters 4 marks 3. Diseases 8 marks a. Superficial 2 marks b. Deep 2 marks c. Toxin mediated 2 marks d. M.R.S.A. 2 marks 3. Name the different types of immunoglobulins. Draw a diagram of immunoglobulin G and label. 15 marks 1. Names of different immunoglobulins. 5 marks 2. Diagram and labeling 10 marks” The above would disclose as to how the area of judgment on the part of a evaluator is sought to be guided, if not regulated. When once this exercise has been carried out by the University as a part of its functioning as an overall evaluating body, would there still be freedom left for the individual evaluator to make a wholesome departure from such a scheme of valuation. In my opinion, the exercise of valuation is sought to be regulated by the scheme of valuation prepared by the University itself. Therefore, every evaluator, being a nominee of the University itself, is bound, in discharge of his duties and functions as an evaluator, by the guidance of the scheme of valuation prepared by the University. If the evaluator has not gone about exercising his powers and performing his duties in accordance with the scheme of valuation supplied by the University, then the exercise indulged in by the evaluator can be characterized as not in conformity with law. The University being a body entrusted with the job and duty to perform various functions assigned to it, has also been conferred the power to choose the examiners and consequently, it is entitled to guide the examiners in the matter of discharge of their functions. The answer scripts produced by the learned Standing Counsel un-mistakably disclose that the valuator has not discharged his functions and duties properly and carefully and did not perform his duties in accordance with the scheme of evaluation supplied by the University while undertaking the job of valuating the performance of the students. For instance, if the students were not awarded marks in spite of their furnishing different modes of transmission of infection in their answer to Question No.1 and they have not been strictly awarded marks for that component of the question relating to “hospital infections”, then the process of evaluation has got to be found to be arbitrary, non uniform and incorrect. Similarly, if the students have not been separately awarded marks for the different types of immunoglobulins furnished by them apart from awarding marks for the diagram of Immunoglobulin G and labeling it, then the valuation process as carried out by the examiners has got to be described as not being inconformity with law. The exercise of discretion has got to be carried out strictly on the lines provided and there cannot be any further departure from the guidelines furnished in that regard. This apart, if a student is required to secure 35 per cent of marks to be declared to have passed the examination, then the Bench Mark for evaluation has to be fixed accordingly. For instance, notwithstanding the content of the answers of the students, if they are to be awarded 5 out of 15 marks, then the process of evaluation is liable to be faulted, for, no student would then secure the required 35 per cent of marks, as 5 out of 15 is only 33.33 per cent. Therefore, rationally, for an assured minimum reproduction of answers, the scale of awarding marks must begin at 6 out of 15, but not less than that. In the instant case, the learned subject expert opined that the content of answers of the petitioners, cannot be described as lacking in that minimum quantity. Therefore, the very exercise of evaluation appears to have been carried out whimsically rather than objectively. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the University would do well to ensure that the new set of examiners are appointed immediately to under take the exercise of valuation of the answer scripts of the writ petitioners and other similarly placed students instead of encouraging all of them to approach this Court. The valuation of the performance of the students shall be carried out strictly in accordance with law and in conformity with the scheme of valuation prepared and furnished by the University and on that basis results may be declared on or before 30th April 2008. With this, the writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Knk/mrk 15th April 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}