news details |
|
|
| DB sets aside judgment of Writ Court | | Re-evaluation in MBBS course not permissible under Varsity Statutes | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 11 (JNF): In an LPA filed by Shravani Sareen seeking quashment of judgment passed by the single Judge whereby the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking direction to quash the communication No.Re-Eval/134458 dated 3.12.2013 issued by the respondent University and for a further direction to issue formal certificate of marks/marks card of the appellant for second professional MBBS Course showing the marks awarded after allowing revaluation of two papers viz., Micro-Biology and Forensic Medicine and also to direct the respondents to show the appellant to have qualified the examination of second professional MBBS from Session 2012.
A Division Bench of State High Court Comprising chief Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir after hearing Adv FA Natnoo appearing for the appellant whereas Adv WS Nargal appearing for the University observed that the decisions relied on by the counsel for the respondent University to support his stand are not applicable to the facts of this case as the respondent University Statute nowhere prohibits the conduct of re-valuation and there is a specific provision available in the Statute to order re-valuation. In fact, in exercise of that enabling provision some candidates appeared in MBBS degree examinations were given the benefit of re-valuation as stated supra. It is not in dispute about the proposition of law that if there is no provision for seeking revaluation the Court cannot compel the Examining Body to order revaluation normally.
Division Bench further observed that it is a well accepted proposition of law that when technicality and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the Court should always lean towards substantial justice. The Supreme Court reminded all the Courts that un-necessary and avoidable technical impediments should not be introduced by virtue of interpretative process. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly taking note of the re-valuation which was already made through a competent Examiner and the marks having been disclosed, the appellant is entitled to get the marks awarded in the re-valuation and other certificates.
With these observations, Division Bench directed the University to issue the mark certificate to the appellant as she passed in the second professional MBBS course from Session April 2012 and other relevant certificates, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant shall surrender the marks statement of the supplementary examination to the respondent University. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
