SURAINA SUBHASH RANE DR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition takes exception to alleged arbitrariness in the excessive weightage given to orals with a corresponding total denigration of dissertations in assessing the proficiency of candidates appearing at the Bombay Universitys examination in M. D. Pathology.

(2.) PETITIONER, after securing a Diploma in Pathology and Bacteriology (DPB) a course conducted by third respondent, joined the M. D. Pathology degree course. Her topic for dissertation/thesis prepared under the supervision of one Dr. A. R. Chitale was accepted. This entitled her to appear for the M. D. exam. , held in July 1989. `orals are one facet in which candidates at the above exam, are tested - the other two being `theory and `practicals. Respondent 6 who is on the staff of the L. T. Medical College (LTMC) at Sion, Bombay was the Head-Examiner for the orals. Besides respondent 6 there were three other Examiners. Petitioner is from the Grant Medical College (GMC) and there has been a tit-for-tat war - so says petitioner - between LTMC and GMC Examiners. This confers a biased preference or loss to candidates hailing from these Colleges. The tests in theory and practicals are practically fool-proof which is the reverse of the test in orals. In orals, no record of the questions asked or answers given is maintained. The time taken in orals is insignificant as compared to that in the other two subjects. In the orals, respondent 6 was the only Examiner from out of the four to question her. The trend of her questioning was such as to leave no doubt of her bias against students from the GMC. This apart the testing by performance at orals is wholly arbitrary. All the questions put to her were those covered by the theory papers. This being the position petitioner could not have performed differently in the two tests. Except for the Bombay University none of the other Universities treat the orals as a separate head or give it a rating on par with other heads. Neither is dissertation downgraded to the position of an entrance examination as is the case with M. D. Pathology exams, conducted by this University. Petitioner was declared failed and an examination of her Marks List (Ex. B) showed that she had secured the requisite passing marks in theory and practicals but not orals. This was due entirely to the part played by respondent 6, emboldened to do so because of the in-built arbitrariness in the manner and method of conducting the same. Circular No. 338 of 1987 (Circular Ex. G) which brought about the deletion of dissertation from an assessment at the exam was issued by respondent 1 in violation of Court orders to lessen the undue weightage given to orals. The petitioner claims directions to undo the damage caused by treating orals as a separate head of examination and ignoring these altogether. Next, she be declared to have passed the exam. by ignoring the marks given to her at the orals.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1, 2 and 6 have filed returns - the latter to deny allegations of bias levelled against her. She points out that in orals, Examiner Dr. Kikani, had given lesser points than her to the petitioner. Respondents 1/2 question the maintainability of the petition contending that it takes exception to an academic standard devised by academic authorities which is outside the ambit of judicial review. Petitioner had secured average marks in theory and practicals. This belied her claims to high proficiency leading to an irresistible inference that she had to be awarded passing marks in the orals. The oral exam. was a necessary test devised by academic organs of the University to test the competence of aspirants to an M. D. degree. The vice pleaded as afflicting the appraisal in orals, did not exist. It was not correct to say that thesis was not given due worth. In fact its acceptance was the pre-condition to being allowed to participate in the other three subjects. Granting of an equal marking to orals vis-a-vis theory and practicals, was not erroneous.