SHINTO FRANCIS T Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners in the above writ petitions are Post Graduate students in various disciplines of Medicine, who failed to qualify in the examinations conducted by the 2nd respondent-University during April-May, 2013. The petitioners are before this Court seeking revaluation of the Theory papers in which they failed to qualify and alternatively seeking moderation. Essentially they seek the intervention of this Court to arrive at the end result of prodding the 2nd respondent-University to qualify them in the examinations, in which, they obviously failed. The petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 18710/2013, 23554/2013 and 23559/2013 are Post Graduate students of General Medicine and the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 19281/2013, 19364/2013, 19365/2013 and 23807/2013 are Post Graduate students in respectively Paediatrics (Diploma), Gynecology, Micro Biology and Physiology. The common ground urged by all the petitioners is that the valuation has not proceed with in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2 guidelines and with respect to the students of General Medicine, they urged the additional ground of 2 questions being amended in the course of the examination. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 23807/2013 also urges an additional issue of there being one out-of-syllabus question in one of the Theory papers.

(2.) I have heard Sri. A. Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P. Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel would take me through the Regulations to contend that in all instances there shall be at least 4 Examiners in the Post Graduate examinations 2 of whom shall be External Examiners and the same set of Examiners shall examine a student in the Theory and Practicals. This, according to the learned counsel, is to ensure that the Practicals are valued with reference to the Theory papers, which is further indicated by providing for valuation of the Theory papers before the start of the Clinical/Practical and Oral examinations of the candidates. The petitioners would contend that the valuation of their Theory papers and the evaluation of their Practicals were done by two set of Examiners, in violation of the Regulations. To further urge their case, the petitioners would also contend that by the scheme of arrangement of Practical examination and valuation of Theory papers, it could be seen that the valuation of Theory papers were done by the Examiners on the very same days on which the Practical examination was conducted and this would indicate the callous indifference with which the valuation of Theory papers were carried on. This is the common ground raised to urge revaluation of the Theory papers, in which all the petitioners have failed by reason of having not obtained the qualifying marks.