While revoking another new norm governing valuation of answer scripts of MBBS students, Karnataka high court observed the resurfacing issue of valuation and revaluation of answer scripts for Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science (RGUHS) in spite of many orders.
The HC mentioned, “the manner in which the ‘Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme) dated October 10, 2020’, was issued without seeking the opinion of an expert body like the Advisory Council, does not augur well for the future of medical education”. Justice R. Devdas passed the order while allowing a batch of petitions filed by Basanth K.B. and several other MBBS students.
“While framing policies, opinions of experts should be sought and grievances of the student community should be heard. A policy with a broad vision would be least susceptible to challenge. Therefore, this court takes this opportunity to once again remind the University and the National Medical Commission to ponder over the observations and come up with a policy that is in the best interest of medical education,” it observed as it noticed previous directions issued on the issue of RGUHS’s ordinances.
As per the new directions issued by the HC, RGUHS must apply the formula according to the ordinance governing the PG MBBS students and if there is a difference of 15% or above in the previous four valuations, send them for fifth valuation in cases of all the students who have failed while following varsity’s October 2020 ordinance. The result of all such students must be announced after the fifth valuation and the entire exercise must be completed well before the start of next year’s exams, to be commenced in March, it said.
The petitioners had pointed out that several ordinances governing assessment/ revaluation were prescribed by the High Court on the first occasion even on the basis of an arbitrary and discriminatory nature between UG and PG courses, RGUHS clarified that ordinance was discriminatory when compared. As in PG courses there was no provisions for a fifth assessment in case of a difference of 15% or more in the first four valuations.