Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Sanjana K.P., a 4th year MBBS student at J.J.M Medical College, Davanagere, appeared for the Phase III Part II (4th year) MBBS examination in December 2019 and the practical examination in January 2020. The practical examinations are conducted by four examiners: two internal and two external. However, for the subject 'Paediatrics', only one external examiner was present instead of the required two. The petitioner's practical answer book was valued by three examiners (two internal and one external) and she was awarded 30 marks. The petitioner contended that this violated Regulation 13 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, which mandates that the practical examination shall be conducted by at least two external examiners. She sought quashing of the valuation and a direction for revaluation by a proper panel. The respondents, including Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Medical Council of India, argued that the examination was conducted as per norms. The court examined Regulation 13 and found that it clearly requires two external examiners for practical examinations. The court held that the regulation is mandatory and its violation renders the valuation invalid. The court quashed the valuation and directed the university to get the practical answer book revalued by a panel of three examiners, including two external examiners, within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Medical Education - Practical Examination - Regulation 13 of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 - Mandatory Requirement of Two External Examiners - The petitioner, a 4th year MBBS student, challenged the valuation of her practical answer book in Paediatrics on the ground that only one external examiner was appointed instead of the required two. The court held that Regulation 13 is mandatory and its violation vitiates the examination process. The valuation was quashed and the university was directed to get the answer book revalued by a panel of three examiners including two external examiners. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference in Academic Matters - The court held that while ordinarily courts do not interfere in academic evaluations, where there is a clear violation of statutory regulations, the writ court can step in to enforce compliance. The impugned valuation was set aside as being violative of Regulation 13. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the valuation of the practical answer book in Paediatrics by only one external examiner instead of two as required under Regulation 13 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 is valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to revaluation by a proper panel of examiners.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned valuation of the practical answer book in Paediatrics is quashed. The respondent university is directed to get the practical answer book revalued by a panel of three examiners, including two external examiners, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Regulation 13 of Graduate Medical Education Regulations
- 1997 mandates practical examination by at least two external examiners
- Violation of mandatory regulation renders valuation invalid
- Writ court can interfere in academic matters if statutory regulations are breached
