Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maria Loraine Lydia, a student of I MBBS at Father Muller's Medical College, Mangaluru, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. She sought a direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (respondent No.1) to award additional marks for her answer to Question No.9 of Biochemistry Theory Paper-II in the June/July 2015 examination, and to refer her answer script to a third examiner. The petitioner contended that her answer was correct and deserved more marks. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that there was no provision for revaluation in the University regulations. The single judge, Justice H.G. Ramesh, heard the matter at the preliminary hearing stage. The court framed the core legal issue: whether revaluation of an answer script could be ordered under Article 226. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that revaluation cannot be directed in the absence of a specific provision in the University regulations. The court noted that the power under Article 226 is extraordinary and cannot be used to order revaluation as a matter of course. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Revaluation of Answer Scripts - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a direction for revaluation of her answer script in Biochemistry Theory Paper-II of the I MBBS examination. The Court held that revaluation cannot be ordered under Article 226 in the absence of a provision in the University regulations. The petition was dismissed. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether revaluation of an answer script can be ordered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revaluation of answer scripts cannot be ordered under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of a provision in the University regulations
- No right to revaluation unless specifically provided
- Courts cannot direct revaluation as a matter of course
