CWP-1519/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. *** SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1519/2010 Rohin Meena and another Versus. Rajasthan University of Health Science and ors. DATE OF ORDER : 02/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Ashok Bansal, for petitioner. Dr. YC Sharma ] Ms. Shruti Dixit ], for respondents It is a petition filed by two petitioners jointly in the peculiar circumstances. The petitioners appeared in Rajasthan Pre- Medical Test-2007 and after passing the same, were admitted in Ist MBBS Course. After completion of one year of regular course, the petitioners appeared in the First MBBS Examination held in the month of July, 2008. However, they failed in the subject of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry. The petitioners thereafter appeared in First MBBS (Remanded) Examination-December-2008 in all the above mentioned three papers the result of which was declared by the University on 07/02/2009 in which the petitioners were declared fail in the subjects of Anatomy and Biochemistry. Copy of mark-sheets has been placed on record as Anx.1. At this stage, the University suo-motu took a decision providing opportunity to the CWP-1519/2010 2 students to apply for reevaluation in Anatomy subject which was circulated to the students vide order dated 16/20.02.2009 (Anx.2). In view of the decision of the University, referred to supra, the petitioners applied for reevaluation in the subject of Anatomy as well as Biochemistry and deposited the requisite fees but its result was not declared in time and in the meantime, since the examinations of First MBBS with regular batch of the year 2008 were going to be held in the month of July/August, 2009, the petitioners appeared in both the subjects of Anatomy and Biochemistry and during the examinations, the result of reevaluation of First MBBS (Remanded Papers) of Anatomy and Biochemistry was declared on 10/07/2009 in which both the petitioners were declared pass in both the subjects, the marks sheet of which have been placed on record as Annexure-3 and since both the petitioners were declared pass in First MBBS in all subjects upon reevaluation of the papers of Anatomy and Biochemistry of the First Year (Remanded papers) Examination held in November/December, 2008, the petitioners did not appear in the practical examination of Anatomy held in the month of July, 2009. The University later on cancelled the result of reevaluation vide its order dated CWP-1519/2010 3 21/01/2010 (Anx.6 & 7) and at the same time, when the result was declared of the examination, in which the petitioners appeared in July/August, 2009, on 04/11/2009 (Anx.5) both the petitioners declared pass in the subject of Biochemistry but in the subject of Anatomy, they were declared fail on the premise that they did not appear in the practical examination. Counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted their application for reevaluation in the Paper of Anatomy in pursuance of the general notice issued by the respondents and after the requisite fees was deposited, their copy was obviously reevaluated and they were declared pass and in such circumstances, passing the order of cancellation of their result of reevaluation at later stage, cannot be held to be justified. Counsel for petitioner in the alternative further submits that in the facts of the instant case, at least the marks which the petitioners secured in the practical examination of paper Anatomy, in which they earlier appeared in July/August, 2009, if are taken note of alongwith written examination of which the result has been declared Anx.A-3 dt. 04/11/2009, the petitioners certainly be declared pass in the paper of Anatomy as well. CWP-1519/2010 4 In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioners fail in the subject of Anatomy, by either way, cannot be held to be justified. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no provision for reevaluation and after this fact was brought to the notice of the Authority that in the back papers of the remanded batch reevaluation procedure was adopted contrary to the Ordinance 157, the Authority took decision to cancel the result of reevaluation and the decision was communicated to the individual petitioner on 21/01/2010. Counsel for respondents further submits that if the petitioners took chance to appear in the written examination despite their application at the relevant time was pending for reevaluation in the month of July/August, 2009, the petitioners have an opportunity to appear in the practical examination as well. As such, once the result of the reevaluation stands cancelled, as not permissible in terms of Ordinance 157 of the University Ordinances, the petitioners, in the absence of appearing in the practical examination, in which indisputably they have not appeared, in these facts and circumstances, no error was committed by the respondents in declaring the petitioners CWP-1519/2010 5 fail in the subject of Anatomy. Counsel further submits that there is no provision for grace marks by 1% as claimed by one of the petitioners. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the material on record. As already observed, it is a case of peculiar nature. Both the petitioners appeared in the remanded batch of First MBBS held in November/December-2008 and the result was declared on 07/02/2009 in which both the petitioners declared failed in the subjects of Anatomy and Biochemistry. At that stage, when the University took decision granting permission to apply for reevaluation in the paper of Anatomy vide order dated 20/02/2009 the petitioners, under the bonafide belief, applied for reevaluation in the paper of Anatomy and since the result could not be declared by that time, the examinations of the regular batch of the year 2008 of First MBBS was going to held in the month of July/August, 2009, both the petitioners availed opportunity of appearing in the said examination. By that time, the result of revaluation was also declared on 10/07/2009 declaring both the petitioners pass and the result of the written examination, in which they appeared in CWP-1519/2010 6 July/August-2009, was declared in November-2009 in which both the petitioners were declared pass so far as the subject of Biochemistry is concerned but in the subject of Anatomy they were declared fail on the premise that both of them have failed to appear in the practical examination. This Court would not like to examine the controversy as to whether the reevaluation was permissible under Ordinance 157 of the University Ordinances in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since counsel for respondent has brought to the notice of the Court that the decision of the respondent University for cancelling the result of reevaluation has been upheld by this Court but at the same time, this Court would like to observe that since both the petitioners applied for revaluation in which they were declared pass in terms of the liberty afforded by the respondent University but also appeared in the examination which was held in July/August-2009, the result of which was declared in the month of November-2009 and it appears that they bonafidely could not appear in the practical examination for the simple reason that the result of reevaluation by that time was pending but merely because they took decision to appear in the written examination, that will in no CWP-1519/2010 7 manner oust them in submitting that at least the marks which they secured in the practical examination can be taken note of in the peculiar facts of the case for their overall assessment of paper Anatomy. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent that the marks of practical examination of the subject of Anatomy in which the petitioners appeared in November- 2008 may be taken note of with the marks which they have secured in the written examination held in the month of July/August-2009 and the fresh result of both the petitioners may be declared within a week of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, if there is any provision of grace marks under the Ordinance, the respondent University may consider the same and take note of it while declaring the result. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.7/ 1519-CW-2010-final.doc