- (1.) The petitioner moved an application bearing No. 83800 of 2001 with the following prayer : "It is therefore, most respect fully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and direct the opposite parties to declare the result of petitioner of M.B.B.S. Final Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and the result of Scrutiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination, 2000 at an early date and also permit the applicant to appear in the final year M.B.B.S. Part-11 commencing from 17.10.2000, otherwise applicant will suffer a great and irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any way." Upon the aforesaid application. the learned single Judge of this Court passed an order on 19.9.2001 which is reproduced herein below : "Since the advocates of this Court are on strike, the father of the petitioner Dr. Narendra Kumar appeared in person In support of this application. This Court vide its order dated 14th March, 2001, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in M.B.B.S. Final Professional Part-1 Examination, 2001 in which the petitioner was allowed to appear by the respondents, but the respondents have neither declared the result of the petitioner of M.B.B.S. Final Professional Part-1 Examination, 2001, nor did the respondents declare the result of the scrutiny applied for by the petitioner for Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination, 2000. It is further stated that since the final year M.B.B.S. Part it examination is scheduled to commence from 17th October. 2001, the petitioner be permitted to appear in the said final year M.B.B.S. Part-II Examination Scheduled from 17th October, 2001. In view of the observations made in the order dated 14th March, 2001 and the directions already issued, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of M.B.B.S, Final Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and further respondents be directed to declare the result of the scrutiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination, 2000 at the earliest. It is, therefore, directed that in view of order of this Court dated 14.3.2001. the respondents shall declare the result of the petitioner of M.B.B.S. Final Professional Part-I Examination, 2001 and the result of scrutiny of Pharmacology of Second Professional Examination. 2000, within a week from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them and further respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the Final Year, M.B.B.S. Part-II Examination, 2001, scheduled to commence from 17th October, 2001, like any other student and respondents may declare the result of the same also, if there is no other legal impediment. No counter-affidavit has yet been filed by the respondents. Respondents are granted three weeks' further time to file counter-affidavit. List immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Office is directed to supply a certified copy of this order to the petitioner on payment of usual charges within twenty four hours."
(2.) A pointed question was asked to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether pursuant to the order dated 19.9.2001, the result of the petitioner of Pharmacology Second Professional Examination. 2000, was declared. It is stated by the learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 that as she failed, therefore, was no necessity to declare the result of the petitioner of Pharmacology Second Professional Examination, 2000. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for scrutiny, hence declaration of result on the basis of scrutiny was not possible. It is submitted that in the present case, no scrutiny was undertaken by the respondents.
(3.) Be that as it may, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides on 26.2.2002 directed the Principal, Medical College, Allahabad to send Head of the Department of Pharmacology of the Medical College, Allahabad to remain present in Court on 28.2.2002 for checking of the answer sheets of Pharmacology Second Professional Examination, 2000 of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2002, the Principal, Medical College, Allahabad sent Dr. K. U. Ansari, Head of Department of M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad, who in presence of the Court, checked the answer-sheets of Pharmacology Second Professional Examination, 2000 of the petitioner. The comments of Dr. K. U. Ansari were recorded after checking the answer sheets of Pharmacology Second Professional Examination 2000 of the petitioner, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference. "I thoroughly checked the answer-book and my comments are as under : 1st Paper : Question No. 1 is of 7 marks. The Examiner awarded 3-1/2 marks. In my opinion, 1 or 1-1/2 marks should have easily been awarded for answer, making total 5 marks. Question No. 2 Is of 7 marks. In this also 2-1/2 marks are awarded. In my opinion 1-1/2 or 2 marks more should have been awarded, making total 4-1/2 marks. Question No. 3 is of 8 marks consists of 4 parts, meaning thereby two marks for each part. The Examiner has awarded only two marks in the last part, so it is not clear whether 2 marks for last part attempted or two marks for all the four parts. In this also 1-1/2 marks should have been awarded for each part. So the total marks for this question should have been 6 instead of 2. Question No. 4 is of 9 marks consisting of 3 parts, meaning thereby 3 marks for each part. In this the Examiner has awarded 4-1 /2 marks in the last. In my opinion, it does not require any change. Question No. 5 is of 9 marks consisting of 3 parts, meaning thereby 3 marks for each part. The Examiner has awarded only 1-1/2 marks in the last part. It should have been at least 1 mark for two parts. The total marks in this question should be 3-1/2 marks. IInd Paper : Question No. 1 is of 7 marks but the Examiner awarded 2-1/2 marks. In my opinion it should have been at least 4-1/2 marks. Question No. 2 is of 7 marks but the Examiner awarded 3-1/2 marks, in my opinion it does not require any change. Question No. 3 consists of four parts is of 8 marks, meaning thereby that 2 marks for each part. In this the Examiner has rightly awarded separate marks for each part. The student has done wrong all the four parts and the Examiner has awarded zero mark for each part. It does not require any alternation. Question No. 4 Is of 9 marks consisting of 3 parts meaning thereby 3 marks for each part. The Examiner has awarded 4-1/2 marks in the last part. The marks should have been awarded separately for each part. In my opinion 1 or 1-1/2 marks may be added. In my opinion the student is entitled to be awarded 6 marks. Question 5 is of 9 marks having 3 parts meaning thereby 3 marks for each part but the Examiner has awarded 4 marks in the last, therefore, in my opinion 1 more mark should be added making it 5 marks. Therefore, the maximum marks obtained by the student is as under : 1st Paper 24 marks out of 40 marks IInd Paper 19 marks out of 40 marks .............................................................. Total 43 marks out of 80 marks ............................................................... Dr. K. U. Ansari Head of Department of Pharmacology M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad 28.2.2002";