NIMMY MAJO Vs. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised for consideration in both these writ petitions is one and the same and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are identical and it is therefore suffice to mention the facts of one case for the purpose of considering the issue raised. The facts referred to are, the facts in W.P.(C) No.252 of 2017.

(2.) The petitioner had undergone and completed BDS course in Governmental Dental College, Kottayam, affiliated to the first respondent University. The petitioner was admitted for the said course during 2010 and she had completed the course during 2016. The petitioner passed all the papers of her first, second and third year of the course. As far as the fourth year papers of the course are concerned, the petitioner had failed in one subject in the Part II examinations. The paper in which the petitioner failed is Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic. Ext.P1 is the examination Regulations of the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the University'. Ext.P1 Regulations has been framed by the governing council of the University. Clause 23 of Ext.P1 stipulates the valuation strategy. Clause 23 provides for double valuation of answer papers in two different centres/centralised valuation camps. It also provides that if the variation in marks is more than 15% of the total marks, the paper should go for a third valuation. It further provides that the average of the marks obtained for double valuation is taken as the original mark of the student. It clarifies that in case of answer papers going for third valuation, the average of the nearest two marks is taken as the final mark.

(3.) The petitioner secured 48 marks for the subject referred to above in the first valuation and 67 marks in the second valuation. Since the difference exceeded 15% of the total marks, the said paper of the petitioner was sent for third valuation. The third valuer, however, awarded only 36 marks to the petitioner. Going by the Regulations referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to only the average of the nearest two marks, viz, 48 and 36, and she was accordingly awarded 42 marks. The minimum marks for pass for the paper was 50 and consequently she was declared 'failed'. The case of the petitioner is that the provision in Clause 23 of Ext.P1 Regulations that the average of the nearest 2 marks will be taken in case answer papers going for third valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to her, the average of the two marks were taken in the case of others and therefore, the University should have taken the average of the three marks or the average of the best two marks in the case of candidates whose papers are going for third valuation. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the University to publish the results of the lost paper on that basis afresh.