Court Cannot Supplant Wisdom Of Academic Bodies By Way Of Directions That Run Contrary To Regulations: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court remarked that the Court cannot supplant the wisdom of the academic bodies by way of directions that run contrary to the regulations.

The Court was deciding a batch of 20 writ petitions filed by the MBBS students against Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, seeking a common relief of awarding five grace marks in the Course attempted (MBBS) RS4 Examinations of January, 2024.

A Single Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed, “In light of the procedure prescribed under the ordinance and its validity having been upheld, the question of considering passing of directions relating to re-evaluation by a method contrary to that provided under the ordinance does not arise. The court cannot supplant the wisdom of the academic bodies by way of directions that run contrary to the regulations.”

The Bench said that many of the petitioners/students have already derived benefit under the stipulations of the ordinance and cannot now seek to reopen and question the validity of the ordinance as regards some of the subjects where they seek for revaluation on other grounds.

Advocate Abhishek Malipatil represented the petitioners while Senior Advocate Madhusudhan R. Naik represented the respondents.

Brief Facts -

The petitioners/students sought quashing of the “Ordinance/Notification governing Central Assessment Programme (CAP) for Theory Paper Assessment of all Under Graduate Health Science Courses, of University”. They further sought direction to the respondent University to conduct fresh evaluation of the failed subjects of MBBS (RS4) Examinations of November 2023 and January 2024 and by resorting to two evaluations of the answer scripts and conducting a third evaluation where there is a deviation of 15% marks and thereafter announce results afresh by considering highest marks for the competition of the results.

The petitioners contended that the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMC Act) has a Scheme whereby the Commission is conferred with the power of making Regulations in terms of Section 57 of the NMC Act relating to curriculum at the Undergraduate level, while on the other hand the Undergraduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) is authorised to perform functions in terms of Section 24 of the NMC Act. It was submitted that as per the Scheme, the Commission is empowered to make Regulations, while the UGMEB is authorised to frame Guidelines and in the hierarchy of Regulations and Guidelines, the Regulations would have to be given precedence. It was further submitted that despite the Guidelines issued by the UGMEB, which specifically does away with the award of grace marks, the benefit under the 2019 Regulations ought to prevail.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… noticing that the validity of the ordinance has been upheld by dismissing the writ petition at the instance of the same batch of RS-4 students, wherein, several contentions had been considered, it would not be appropriate to permit repeated challenges to the same ordinance at the instance of different students on fresh ingenious contentions raised. The Court refrains from re-entering to the validity of ordinance 05.09.2022 validity of which has been affirmed on two occasions and the said aspect requires finality.”

The Court further said that the question of overreaching the procedure prescribed under the ordinance does not arise and no extraordinary circumstances justifying passing of directions contrary to the procedure prescribed under the ordinance arise.

“Insofar as request in summoning of photocopies of answer scripts, the court ought not to embark upon the inspection of answer sheet and consider requests for re-evaluation which is the domain of expert bodies”, it added.

Regarding the prayer for the opportunity attempt exam of January 2024, the Court said that the said prayer does not survive for consideration as the relief in itself was in the nature of interim relief pending adjudication on various issues including that of award of grace marks.

“… the interim orders stand discharged forthwith and cannot confer the students with any further equitable benefit”, it also clarified.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Cause Title- Abin Thomas Sebastian v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:38514)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Abhishek Malipatil

Respondents: Senior Advocate Madhusudhan R. Naik, Advocates Farah Fathima, and N. Khetty.

Click here to read/download the Judgment