1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.48409/2016

Kumari Sanjana Jagadeesh ………..Petitioners

Versus

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bengaluru ………..Respondents

Name: Vaishnavi Brajesh Shrivastava

Roll No:

Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5 yrs Course) Sem- X

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training –IV

College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi-Mumbai.

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Affidavit in Reply of 3-7
Writ Petition
2. Vakalatnama 8
3 Last Page 9
 2

Authorities relied upon by the Respondent:

At present Nil

Judgements relied upon by the Respondent:

1. West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das

2. Maharashtra State Board Of ... Vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984

3. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004

4. Directorate of Film Festivals & ... vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors on 11 April, 2007
 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.48409/2016

KUMARI SANJANA JAGADEESH

D/O. Dr. JAGADEESH KUMAR P M
AGE: 23 YEARS, MBBS STUDENT
R/A.NO.1820/1, 'SANJANA'
BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
II CROSS, MANDYA - 571 401 ...PETITIONER

Versus

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF

HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON BEHALF

RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

I Rregistrar of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru -
560041 do hereby state solemn as under:

1. The present Petition is not maintainable on the following grounds and hence liable to be dismissed
summarily and further nothing in the Petition shall be deemed to be admitted by the Respondent which
is not specifically reffered herewith for a want of specific traverse and the respondent reserve their right
to file further detailed reply if circumstances warrant.
 4

2. The Respondent - University, sought to justify the impugned action of the Respondent -
University by relying upon the Notification dated 18.8.2012 especially Ordinance (6)(d), which
reads as follows:-

"(6) (d) in case, where for a given question, one examiner has marked "NA" and another
has given marks, then the marks awarded by one examiner shall be posted against "NA"
and new total marks is to be arrived. In case for a given question, if there are more than
one marks, then the highest of these marks shall be awarded against "NA" (For example,
say question no.9, first examiner has given 5 marks, second examiner has marked the
question as "NA" and third examiner has given 2 marks, then 5 marks is to be assumed for
question no.9 in valuation no.2 and new total is to be arrived for valuation 2)."

3. Respondent states that the question No.4 of the Petitioner has been valued by two
evaluator and the 2nd evaluator has awarded zero marks to the said question and there is no
statutory provision for a second revaluation in matter of West Bengal Bengal Council
of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das is was held that
“Considered the issue of revaluation and found that in the absence of a statutory
provision, the court cannot direct reassessment or re-examination of answer papers, since
there should be finality to the public examinations conducted by any University. In the
teeth of the binding precedent, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no second
revaluation ordered by the court in the present writ petition.”
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

4. The Respondent States that as per the Notification dated 18.08.2012 especially Ordinance
"(6) (d) in case, where for a given question, one examiner has marked "NA" and another
has given marks, then the marks awarded by one examiner shall be posted against "NA"
and new total marks is to be arrived. In case for a given question, if there are more than
one marks, then the highest of these marks shall be awarded against "NA" (For example,
say question no.9, first examiner has given 5 marks, second examiner has marked the
question as "NA" and third examiner has given 2 marks, then 5 marks is to be assumed for
question no.9 in valuation no.2 and new total is to be arrived for valuation 2)."
Respondent corroborate the above notification through the view of the court passed in
matter
Maharashtra State Board Of ... Vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July,
1984
“ It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the
legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and
purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise
of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra
vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not
 5

help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task
of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it,
in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational acts within the object
and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or
efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the
legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the
Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural
Would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement
of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or
demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to
whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power
conferred on the delegated by the Statute”.

5. The Respondent submits that according to the Ordinance "(6) (d) there is no provision
wherein a candidate is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book to support the
above contention respondent rely on the the view of apex Court in the matter between

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004

“Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate
may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for
scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all
the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any
mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first
cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was
found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence
of any provision for re-evaluation of answer- books in the relevant rules, no candidate in
an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his
marks.”

6. The Respondents submits that in view of the Apex court in matter between Directorate
Of Film Festivals & ... vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors on 11 April, 2007

“Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness,
suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review
when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental
rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any
statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on

the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the
 6

subject of judicial review.”

The Respondent therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the writ Petition on
the cost of the Petitioner.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL

DUTYBOUND EVER PRAY.

Sd/-

Advocate for Respondent Respondent

 7

VERIFICATION

I, Rep. By its Registrar 4th 't' block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 041on behalf of myself and
other Petitioners, do hereby states that whatever is stated in foregoing Para No. 1 to 8 of the
Petition is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly declared at Calcutta

Dated 4th day of March, 2021

Sd/-

Advocate for Respondent Respondent

 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.48409/2016

Kumari Sanjana Jagadeesh ………..Petitioners

Versus

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bengaluru ………..Respondents

VAKALATNAMA

I, Rep. By its registrar do appoint Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate to act, appear and plead on
behalf of us in the above Writ Petition.

In witness whereof we have set and subscribed our hands to this writing at Calcutta.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2021

Accepted

Mr. Siddharth Singh Sd/-

Advocate for the Respondent. Respondent

Roll No: 116

Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5 yrs Course) Sem- X

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training –IV

College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul, Navi-Mumbai.

 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.48409/2016

Kumari Sanjana Jagadeesh

………..Petitioners
Versus

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bengaluru
………..Respondents

WRITPETITION

Dated this 4th day of March, 2021.

Mr. Siddharth Singh

Advocate for the Respondent,

Roll No: 116

Course: B.L.S. L.L.B. (5 yrs Course) Sem- X

Subject: Moot Court Practical Training – IV

College: Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Nerul,

Navi-Mumbai.