- (1.) THE petitioner Shyam Sunder Pathak filed a writ petition No. 1128/1985 in which he made the following prayers: (a) accept the writ petition; (b) quash the result pertaining to the Long Case (one) Clinical Test for Final MBBS held in the year 1985, whereby the petitioner had been awarded a 'Zero' mark out of 60 (Annexure -7) by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ as this Court may think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (c) declare the action of the University of Rajasthan of making another reference to Shri Bharathi and to Academic Council as ultra vires of the powers of the University and of no consequence what ever in the eye of law; (d) issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ directing the University to award at least 50% marks in the Long Case (one) Clinical Test or average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects or such marks as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and just in the circumstances of the case; (e) In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may issue a writ of mandamous or any other appropriate order, direction or writ directing the University to examine the petitioner in the Paper of Long Case (one) Clinical Test with a set of examiners other than those who have already examined him, at the earliest and in the meanwhile the Respondents be directed to admit the petitioner to Rotating Intership before July 7, 1985 as that the petitioner is awarded MBBS Degree along with his other batch mates of February, 1985 and his chance of Post -Graduate in a subject according to his merit is not jeopardised and the petitioner is not being put to any loss in his future career.. (f) Any other relief deemed fit and just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner; (g) Cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge by order dated May 19, 1986 observed as under: This would show that except securing zero mark in the long case in Clinical, the petitioner has performed fairly well in other papers. In Clinical also it appears that 10 marks were allotted for day to day Clinical assessment and he secured 7 marks out of that 10 marks. In periodical assessment he secured 25 marks out of 40 marks. It may also be stated that in the examination held in August, 1985, in which the petitioner appeared, he secured 258 marks out of 400 marks in the paper of Surgery including Orthopaedics out of which 162 marks out of 260 marks were secured in Theory and 96 marks out of 150 marks were secured in Clinical. Out of the aforesaid 96 marks, he secured 40 marks out of 60 marks in the long case (one) and 56 marks out of 90 marks in short cases (three). In these circumstances it was expected that the University would throw some light on the question as to why the petitioner was awarded zero mark at the Clinical examination in the long case in MBBS Final Examination held in February, 1985. The reply filed on behalf of the University is silent on this subject. According of a zero mark is rather unusual. It means that the student has no knowledge what so ever of the subject or has committed such a serious blunder that he does not deserve to qualify for the MBBS degree. In the present case out of the 150 students, the petitioner was the only sudent who was awarded zero mark. The examiners could have explained why they felt it necessary to award zero mark to the petitioner. One of the examiner Professor K.C. Dadoo is a party (Respondent No. 3) to the writ petition, but he has not filed any affidavit. The other examiners have also not filed any affidavit indicating the reason why the petitioner was awarded zero mark. The reply is supported by the affidavit of Shri P.L. Sharma Officer -in -charge who has no personal knowledge as to what happened at the examination and has verified the contents of the reply on the basis of the record. The record only contains the marks sheet signed by all the four examiners. Learned Single Judge thereafter held that the petitioner had been awarded zero mark in the long case and record relating to the said examination is not available and, it is not possible to make an objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner could have legitimately asked for a direction by this court for holding of a special examination in the paper in which the petitioner had failed and for declaration of his result on the basis of the marks obtained in the said special examination. The giving of such a direction for holding a especial examination for the petitioner is not necessary in the present case because during the pendency of this writ petition, an examination was held in August, 1985 and the petitioner appeared in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics in the said examination and in that examination he has passed in that subject. In the circumstances the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Clinical Examination for long case in the said examination can be taken into account for the purpose of directing the University to declare the result of the petitioner in the MBBS Final examination after taking into account the marks obtained by him in the long case in the Clinical examination in the examination held in August, 1985.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge after recording the above findings gave the following relief in the operative part of the judgment. The writ peition is therefore allowed and the University is directed that the result of the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. Final examination held in February, 1985 be revised and in the place of the marks awarded to him in the said examination in the long case in the Clinical examination in the subject of Surgery including Orthopaedice the marks obtained by him in the long case in the Clinical examination in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics held in August, 1985 may be substituted and the result of the petitioner be declared on that basis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this writ petition.;