High Court of Karnataka Upholds University Ordinance on MBBS Exam Revaluation — Regulation 5 of RGUHS Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 held valid and not violative of Article 14. The court found that the ordinance prescribing a uniform revaluation fee and procedure was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 77
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Vishweshwara C and Shashank S. Reddy, were first-year MBBS students at Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences respectively. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Regulation 5 of the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). The petitioners contended that the ordinance was incomplete, arbitrary, and sought to infuse inequality, thereby violating Article 14. They argued that the revaluation fee and procedure were not uniform and would create discrimination among students. The respondents, represented by the Registrar (Evaluation) and the University, defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of university autonomy. The court, after hearing arguments and reserving orders on 06.08.2021, pronounced judgment on 17.12.2021. The court held that the ordinance applies uniformly to all students and does not create any classification that would violate Article 14. The university has the authority to prescribe revaluation rules, and the ordinance is complete and reasonable. The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the ordinance.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - University Ordinance prescribing uniform revaluation fee and procedure for MBBS examinations - The court examined whether the ordinance created inequality among students - Held that the ordinance applies uniformly to all students and does not discriminate, thus not violative of Article 14 (Paras 1-10).

B) Education Law - University Ordinance - Revaluation Procedure - Regulation 5 of RGUHS Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 - The court considered the challenge that the ordinance was incomplete and arbitrary - Held that the university has the autonomy to prescribe revaluation rules and the ordinance is complete and reasonable (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Regulation 5 of the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 issued by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is incomplete, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Regulation 5 of the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 issued by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.

Law Points

  • Ordinance validity
  • Article 14
  • revaluation fee
  • university autonomy
  • MBBS examination
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (12) 21

Writ Petition No.9619 of 2021 (EDN-RES) and Writ Petition No.13119 of 2021 (EDN-RES)

2021-12-17

Sachin Shankar Magadum

Sri.D.R.Ravishankar (for petitioner in WP 9619/2021), Sri.Sarvana.S (for petitioner in WP 13119/2021), Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri.N.K.Ramesh (for respondents)

Vishweshwara C and Shashank S. Reddy

Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the validity of an ordinance issued by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences regarding revaluation of MBBS examination papers.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that Regulation 5 of the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 is incomplete, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Filing Reason

Petitioners, being MBBS students, contended that the ordinance prescribing revaluation fee and procedure was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Issues

Whether Regulation 5 of the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 is incomplete and arbitrary? Whether the ordinance violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the ordinance is incomplete, arbitrary, and seeks to infuse inequality, violating Article 14. Respondents argued that the ordinance is a valid exercise of university autonomy and applies uniformly to all students.

Ratio Decidendi

The ordinance applies uniformly to all students and does not create any classification that would violate Article 14. The university has the autonomy to prescribe revaluation rules, and the ordinance is complete and reasonable.

Judgment Excerpts

These writ petitions are filed questioning the Ordinance dated 1.2.2021 on the ground that it is incomplete, arbitrary and seeks to infuse inequality and therefore, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Procedural History

Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; heard and reserved for orders on 06.08.2021; judgment pronounced on 17.12.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Petition in Date of Birth Correction Case — Employee Failed to Prove Correct Date of Birth. Labour Court and Industrial Court Orders Set Aside as Employee Did Not Challenge Employer's Evidence and Delay in Raisin...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Execution of Order Under Section 36 CPC Despite Not Being a Decree — Remands for Consideration Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The Court held that an order is executable under Section 36 CPC and the Executing Court must adjudic...