RAVINDER KUMAR WADHWA Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND, UNIVERSITY ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Dr. Ravinder Kumar Wadhwa appeared in the M.D. (Medicine) Examination held in October 1989, by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, under roll No. 5607. The examination consisted of theory as well as practicals/clinicals known as spotting. Out of 400 marks for theory papers, the petitioner was awarded 220 marks, which comes to a little about 55 per cent, whereas in practicals/clinicals (spotting) he was awarded only 173 marks. On that basis he was not declared successful. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by contending that-firstly, even with 173 marks out of 400 marks in practicals/clinicals (spotting) the petitioner should have been declared successful as another candidate Hans Raj, who secured 172 marks in spotting had already been declared successful; and secondly questions Nos. 9, 10 and 13 of spotting have not been correctly awarded as the marks awarded by the examiner to the petitioner for all the three questions are zero, whereas the award of these questions of other candidates for answers to these very questions is different. On that basis, the petitioner contended that instead of zero, he was entitled to 10 marks each for the answers to these questions, thereby adding at least 30 marks for these questions, which would raise his marks from 173 to 203 in the practicals/clinicals (spotting). This increase in the award would have changed the fate of this result and secured clear success to him in the M.D. (Medicine). This disparity in the award qua the petitioner was dus to some interpolation and tampering in the assessment and evaluation as, according to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were inimically disposed towards the petitioner.

(2.) In the written statement, allegations of any personal bias, discrimination and arbitrariness have been stoutly refuted by the respondents, yet the factual position could not be successfully denied.

(3.) Supplementing the preliminary objections and other objections raised by the respondents Mr. Balram Gupta, learned counsel appearing for them, has vehemently contended that there being no provision for revaluation of the answer books the Court could not interfere in the award given by the internal examiners of the University and the result of the petitioner be left as it is.