WP/15003/2009 of M.B.Shashank Mathur Vs NTR University of Health Sciences, represented by its on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioner is studying Psychiatric Medicine in MamataMedical College, Khammam. After completing M.B.B.S., he wasadmitted to Post Graduate Diploma course. The final examinations ofFirst Year course were held in April/May, 2009. He passed in all thepapers. But, he failed in General Psychiatry Paper-II. The pass mark is150 out of 300 and he got 149 falling short by one mark. He, therefore,applied for re-totalling/re-verification of answer script in Psychiatrytheory paper. As advised, he visited respondent. He was shown theanswer script in Paper-II. According to him, he had written answer toquestion No.8, which carries ten marks, on two sheets, but only onesheet was valued and sheet behind it was not at all valued. He alsoalleges that the answer written by him is correct, but he was given onlythree marks by examiner by inadvertence in not looking at secondsheet which was behind the sheet valued by examiner. The petitioneralso alleges that all the answers given to eight questions aresubstantially correct in accordance with the standard textbooks and themarks awarded to question No.8 are not proper.

The petitioner gave a representation on 16.07.2009 requestingrespondent to re-value the paper by the same examiner or by any otherexaminer or by outside examiner, in vain. Therefore, he filed instantwrit petition seeking a writ or order or direction declaring the valuationof petitioner’s Paper-II as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and forconsequential direction to respondent to properly value all thequestions and ensure that petitioner is given marks for each of thequestions answered by him in accordance with the textbooks and keyanswers prepared by respondent University.

The matter was initially listed on 27.07.2009, when this Courtdirected learned standing counsel for respondent to produce answersheet of petitioner in Paper-II, General Psychiatry. The matter wasagain listed on 03.08.2009, on that day, this Court while ordering notice before admission, passed the following order.

The petitioner is a student of PG Diploma in PsychiatricMedicine. He appeared for General Psychiatry Paper-IIexamination in the month of April, 2009 and scored 149marks, one mark less for passing the subject. He applied forre-verification of his answer sheet, and on re-verification, hefound that the answer to question No.8 was not valued fully, inthat to complete the answer, he used additional sheet. TheExaminer, while awarding marks, has taken into considerationthe half answer written by him in the main sheet, but did nottake into consideration the other half of the answer written byhim in the additional sheet.

On 27.07.2009, the learned standing counsel for therespondent University undertook to produce the answer sheetof the petitioner. As undertaken by him, he produced theanswer sheet.

I have perused the answer sheet of the petitioner in thepresence of the counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondent University.

Prima facie, a perusal of the answer sheet of the petitioner,disclosed that there are no marks awarded on the additionalanswer sheet used by the petitioner for completing the answerto question No.8, thus giving an indication that the entireanswer was not valued.

The learned standing counsel for the respondent Universitysubmitted that as directed by this Court in W.P.No.379 of2008, dated 16.04.2008, the respondent university hasalready constituted a Grievances committee, to look intoissues of the nature involved in the writ petition, and the saidCommittee will look into the grievance of the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the respondent University shallrefer the case of the petitioner to the Grievances Committee,comprising a subject expert, which shall consider whether ornot the answer sheet of the petitioner, relating to Paper-IIGeneral Psychiatry, particularly answer to question No.8 iscompletely valued or not, and in the event, the GrievancesCommittee finds that the same is not valued completely, thenthe subject expert shall value the same. The Grievancescommittee shall submit its report to this Court, within a periodof 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Theoriginal answer sheet of the petitioner is returned to thelearned standing counsel for the respondent University toenable him to send the same to the Grievances Committeefor taking appropriate action in the matter.

In obedience to the order of this Court as above, the case ofpetitioner was referred to Grievance Committee. After undertaking therequisite exercise, respondent placed before this Court the Minutes ofthe grievance committee Meeting held on 03.09.2009. The matter is heard again after furnishing copy thereof to learned counsel forpetitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the standardtextbooks, petitioner answered question No.8 (Types of Delusions)correctly and award of three marks by the examiner is too low. According to learned counsel, petitioner answered question No.8 ontwo pages but in all probability, the examiner looked at one page andignored the other page resulting in awarding of three marks only. Herelies on the extracts from the text books on the subject.

The scope of judicial review in academic matters is very limited.

In University of Mysore v C.D.Govinda Rao[[1]],J.P.Kulshrestha vAllahabad University[[2]],Maharashtra State Board ofS.H.S.Education v Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[[3]]and State ofUttar Pradesh v D.K.Singh[[4]], Supreme Court dealing with casesarising in the context of different fact situations laid down that inacademic matters, which are dealt with by experts in the field ofeducation, the Courts ordinarily cannot interfere. Deferential review isa standard which is applied. Though there is absolutely no ban, theCourts should hesitate to dislodge the decisions of academic bodies,unless it is shown that the decision maker ignored the ground realitiesand exercised power arbitrarily and mala fide manner.

In case of grievance that petitioner’s examination papers are notvalued properly or the valuation by the examiners is not as expectedby examinee, ordinarily the Court of judicial review must not enter thearena. Of course, if a complaint is made that in the system ofexamination by objective type or multiple choice questions, the answeris not according to the published key, the Court may to a limited extentlook into such complaints. In examinations, in which examinee isrequested to write lengthy answers, the Court cannot be expected tobe an expert. It cannot act as an examiner of examiner. Examination ofexaminer’s evaluation is certainly outside the purview of judicialreview, however liberal the Court may be having regard to generallysympathetic pasture, the Court adopts in dealing with grievances ofexaminees. If any complaint is made that on re-verification it is foundthat all the answers to all the questions have not been valid at all, itmay be open to the Court to direct the concerned examination Board tolook into the matters. When once, such a direction is given and incompliance thereto, the examination Board after undertaking exercise,submits report, the matters must rest there. Any interference even afterBoard undertakes the exercise of evaluation with reference to theCourt Order, would amount to exercise appellate powers, which arenot within the purview of judicial review.

In Bhushan Uttam Khare v Dean, B.J.Medical College[[5]], thepetitioner appeared for III year M.B.B.S., examinations held byUniversity of Puna. After declaration of results, he applied for re-valuation of answer scripts. As many as 167 students also appliedfor re-valuation. After declaration of re-valuation results, some of thestudents requested the University to get the answer papers re-valuedby the same set of examiners. The University appointed a Committeeto make an enquiry. After receiving the report of the Committee, re-valuation results were cancelled and University decided to conductfurther re-valuation. This decision was challenged by the petitionerand the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay.Before Supreme Court, it was contended that in the absence of anyprovision in the University Ordinance for second re-valuation, thedecision of the University is vitiated. While dismissing the appeal,Supreme Court observed:

Analysis

We have considered all the materials placed before usin the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the wellaccepted principle that in deciding the matters relating toorders passed by authorities of educational institutions, theCourt should normally be very slow to pass orders in itsjurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction ofeducational authorities should normally be left to their decisionand the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks itmust do so in the interest of justice. We are satisfied thatthere had been sufficient material before the ExecutiveCouncil to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is notcorrect to say that the University had acted on non-existentrule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensiveenough to include revaluation also for further action. The factthat two examiners were also the members of the Committeewhich recommended for revaluation cannot result in any biaseven if they had been directly concerned with the originalevaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also therehad been some changes between the original valuation andthe revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring ordemonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation.We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitionerthat the High Court had erred in not granting the relief soughtfor. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, whoalone has come before this Court and who had securedhigher marks in the first revaluation and is, therefore,aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would be dulyconsidered in the selection for post-graduate course.

From a reading of the decision in Bhushan (supra), it may betaken as well settled that when an academic body like ExecutiveCouncil takes a decision in the matter of re-valuation, the Court cannot interfere unless it is vitiated by bias in a restrictive sense.

In Dr.S.A.Hakeem v N.T.R.University of Health Sciences[[6]],five post graduate students in ENT filed writ petition seeking adeclaration that theory and practical examinations are vitiated byreason of bias on the part of fifth respondent and for a direction toconduct practical re-examination without fifth respondent as Examiner.This Court rejected the plea of bias observing as under.

The examining body or Board of Examiners or anindividual examiner/evaluator certainly does not performjudicial functions. It is doubtful whether the Board ofExaminers performs quasi-judicial function while evaluatingthe examination papers and declaring the results. Thus, whenthe knowledge of a student after completion of the course istested by the examiners which results in awarding of passcertificate the function is akin to that of a Selection Committeeselecting an eligible, suitable and meritorious candidate forbeing appointed to a job. The Board of Examiners, therefore,performs an administrative function leading to anadministrative decision. The fact that the examiners are notunder legal obligation to give reasons as to how theyevaluated the papers in certain manner lends support to suchview. It is settled that administrative authority is under no legalobligation to record reasons in support of its decision and thatthe only requirement is that the administrative authority shouldfollow ‘fairness’ or ‘fair’ procedure. (See National Institute of Mental Health v Kalyana Raman[[7]]). Therefore, if there is alone examiner and he acts with proven malice or bias in agiven case the same can be challenged before appropriateUniversity authority. But, in my considered opinion when abody of persons takes a decision resulting in ‘collectivity ofopinion’, the aggrieved person cannot complaint bias ormalice. That is to say ordinarily it canot be heard that theBoard of Examiners acted with bias or malice.

In this case, as directed by this Court, the Grievance Committeeagain valued/verified the answer script of petitioner and especially,answer to question No.8 and came to the conclusion that the valuationis proper and that before awarding the marks, the examiner has takeninto consideration the entire answer rather than leaving answer on theadditional sheet. The Grievance Committee consisted of the Director ofMedical Education (Academic); Principal of Siddhartha MedicalCollege, Vijayawada; Professor of Psychiatry, Guntur Medical Collegeand the Registrar of Respondent University. All of them are experts inPost Graduate Medical Education, and therefore, their decision mustbe treated as final. If the Court undertakes to examine the answers ofthe petitioner with reference to the textbooks published before thisCourt, there cannot be any end for such exercise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the writ petition.

The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed withoutany order as to costs.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

.12.2009pln

Note: LR copy be marked.

(By order) pln

[1]AIR 1965 SC 491

[2](1980) 3 SCC 418 : AIR 1980 SC 2141

[3](1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543

[4](1986) 4 SCC 160 : AIR 1987 SC 190

[5](1992) 2 SCC 220 : AIR 1992 SC 917

[6]2000 (5) ALT 754

[7]AIR 1992 SC 1806