BHAGYASHREE Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR AMRAVATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who appeared for the Final M. B. B. S. Examination held by the Amravati University has originally challenged the result of the said examination declared by the University. However, at the fag end of the arguments, when some defect was noticed and when in particular, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner had made application for revaluation of marks in three subjects because of which she should be estopped from challenging the result of the Final M. B. B. S. Examination declared by Amravati University, an amendment application is filed to challenge the result of revaluation itself. Although we were not inclined to allow the amendment, since the learned Counsel for the University has agreed that we should consider the same in this writ petition itself and since he has produced the relevant material in that regard, we allow the C. A. No. 2924 of 1992 for amendment and consider the said question so as to finally conclude the grievance of the petitioner in regard to valuation and revaluation of her papers in Final M. B. B. S. Examination held in November 1990, particularly when the examination itself is an old one.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner alongwith the other candidates appeared for the final M. B. B. S. Examination held by the Amravati University in November 1990. After the papers of the said examination were valued, the University found that there were mal-practices on large scale and code numbers were leaked, which were also published in newspapers. The Vice-Chancellor appointed a Committee to go into the said question. Till then, the results on the basis of the valuation of papers of November 1990 were withheld. The said Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor himself. The said committee gave its report on 22-1-1991. According to its report, it recommended that all the answer papers of the final M. B. B. S. Examination held in November 1990 should be given for reassessment immediately and its results should be declared on the basis of reassessment of marks. Accordingly, the answer books of the said examination were reassessed and it is thereafter that the result of the final M. B. B. S. Examination was declared on 2-2-1991. The said report was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 13-4-1991. The said report was accepted by the Executive Council and it further resolved to appoint a Committee to find out as to who was actually responsible for the leakage of code numbers of answer books of the final M. B. B. S. Examination held in November 1990. 2-A. After the results were declared in February 1991, the petitioner made an application for revaluation of her answer books in three subjects in which she had failed viz. Community Medicine, E. N. T. and Surgery. The said application was made as per Ordinance No. 159 of the Amravati University. Her answer papers in the above subjects were therefore sent for revaluation by the University. The result of the revaluation was communicated to the petitioner on 26-5-1991 according to which, in two subjects, her marks were further reduced and in the third subject, the marks obtained by her were maintained. It may be seen that as per the original declaration of result, the petitioner had failed and as per the revaluation also, she could not succeed. It is pertinent to see that even before her result of revaluation was declared, she had already preferred a writ petition in this Court on 26-2-1991 challenging the re-assessment of papers made by the Amravati University as hereinbefore shown. As already pointed out, the petitioner has amended the petition to challenge the result of revaluation only on 25-8-1992 as stated in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) THE principal question raised for our consideration both as regards the original assessment as well as revaluation is that the valuation is not made by the Examiners whose names are contained in the list prepared by the Committee constituted under section 73 of the Amravati University Act, 1983 (for short " 73 Committee" ). The submission is that the Vice Chancellor has no power to send the answer books on his own to the examiners of his own choice because as provided in sub-section (3) of section 73, it is only in a case where any examiner whose name is contained in the list prepared by the 73 Committee, is unable to accept the examinership and a fresh appointment cannot be made in time by the Executive Council, that the Vice Chancellor can appoint another examiner and report such appointment to the Executive Council.