SABIHA MOHAMMED ILYAS PATEL, D/O MOHAMMED ILYAS PATEL Vs. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041, THE PRINCIPAL, RAJARAJESWARI DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, RAMOHALLI CROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had joined Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital ('College' for short), Mysore Road, Bangalore, for the study of BDS Course for the academic session 2007 -2008. The said college is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore ('University" for short). It is She case of the petitioner that she had passed CBSE 10th and 12th Board Examination with distinction She has completed her first, second and third year BDS Course in first class with registration NO.07D5065, which is clear from he marks -cards at Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' respectively. She has appeared for the fourth year BDS Course examination during July, 2011 conducted by the University. The 4th year BDS course consists of seven subjects including 'Conservative Dentistry including Endodontics'. She has passed in all the subjects in first class except the aforesaid subject in the practical examination. In the theory paper of the aforesaid subject, she has secured 62 out of 100, in viva -voce 16 out of 25 and in internal assessment 13 out of 25. However, in the practical examination, she was awarded 25 out of 75 marks. In the practical internal assessment, she has secured 15 out of 25. Thus, petitioner has passed in the theory part of the subject but has failed in the practical examination as she has failed to secure 50% (38 out of 75) in the practical examination.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 was the internal examiner for the practical examination. She has arbitrarily awarded less marks and failed the petitioner deliberately. The third respondent is the Reader, who had conducted the practical examination for the subject on 20.7.2011. The practical examination carries maximum 75 marks, which involves, three stages of the examination. The first stage is cavity preparation of the tooth (only after the clinically successful cavity preparation, the next stage can be conducted). The second stage is the base and matrix band application. The examiner after examining the second stage one after another allows the student to proceed with the next stage. The third stage is restoration, which involves filling of the tooth. In case the candidate fails to perform the cavity preparation without exposure of pulp, only then the examiner will allow the student to proceed with the next stage. In case the cavity preparation is defective, the patient is sent to the P.O. Section for root canal treatment and the student would fail in the practical examination. One Nagaraj was the patient approved by respondent No.3 for practical examination of the petitioner. She had submitted all the instruments needed for the department of examination a day before for sterilization. On the day of the examination, she started the procedure with her sterilized instruments needed for the examination and after the completion of every step, respondent No.3 assessed it and asked her to proceed with the next step. First step involves arranging the instruments followed by cavity preparation. After successful preparation, respondent No.3 came and checked her case and asked her to proceed with the next step i.e. placement of matrix bond and application of base (dental cement) in the tooth. Again, the petitioner called respondent No.3 and showed it to her and she asked the petitioner to do the silver amalgam filling (restoration). Petitioner did the filling, then carved it, polished it and showed the final filled cavity. After seeing every step, respondent No.3 made no notes of any clinical observation but noted down the marks. Respondent No.3 having noticed each step of the treatment to the patient Nagaraj, which completed perfectly, had permitted the petitioner to discharge him. Inspite of the successful performance of the practicals, respondent No.3 without any rhyme or reason failed the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.2 has filed her statement of objections stating that she being the Chief Superintendent for practical examinations was incharge of the whole examination She has only to make over all supervision of the examination After examination, the paper will be sealed and given to her on receipt of which she would forward to the University. She has no role to play in the assignment of marks in the practical examination. The allotment of marks by the examiner is on the basis of the Ordinance issued by the University. Accordingly, respondent No.3 and other examiner had awarded the marks. The first respondent on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, had investigated the matter and had made attempts to ascertain the truth of the complaint. The enquiry has been concluded against the petitioner. She was given ample opportunity to explain her complaint in the presence of third respondent. The practical examination is to be assessed on the basis of the practical performance and instant appreciation and declaration of the performance. No hard and fast rule can be followed. The examiners are to be careful in assessing the performance of the students, as after the fourth year, they would immediately interact with the patients. Their clinical skill is also to be properly assessed. The petitioner is stated to have a poor clinical skill. Therefore, the petitioner's complaint for assigning less marks for the performance she has conducted would not be a subject or an issue to be decided in a writ petition.