Alok Bansal & Ors v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors

2. On 20.09.2017 this court had passed an order on the application of six petitioners who had been aggrieved by the manner in which respondent No. 1 University had conducted their examination. This t was for the course of degree of Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine). Their grievance was confined only to the clinical/ practical/oral examination; they had sought setting aside of the aforenoted examination; contention being that out ofthe two external examiners appointed for the purpose ofthe practical examination one ofthem was not from outside the state. This court had agreed with this submission ofthe petitioners and had ordered a re-examination. This re-examination was ordered only qua the Clinical/Practical and the oral examination ofthe petitioners. Qua the theory papers it was noted that since the MD course/Super Speciality course is an intense coursefor which adeep-rooted and intense study hasto be done and it, may not be feasible for the petitioners to do so since all ofthern are working doctors; the theory papers already.submitted by the petitioners would be re-evaluated. Since there was no grievance by r ( the petitioners qua the set of the internal examiners who had conducted their internalexaminationthere was alsono consequential orderpassedforre-evaluationofthethreetheorypapersbyafteshset of examiners. This is clear from the order dated 20.09.2017 (particuiarlypara30and31)oftheaforenotedorder. 3, This court had been informed thatthe parties had approached the Division Bench, the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the order dated 20.9.2017. The LPA had been dismissed on 09.11.2017.,.

4. By way ofthe present writ petition(W.P.(C)10776/2017)the petitionersareseekingastayoftheexaminationwhich hasnow been, scheduled by the respondent / University for 05.12.2017 and

06122017. Their submission is that the external examiners have beenchanged,intermsoftheorder dated20;09.2017buttheInternal examinersalsoneedtobechanged. Theprejudiceiswritlargeasthe samesetofinternalexaminershad evaluatedtheir papersearlier and ifthey are permitted to do so evenfor the second time,this would amounttoanegationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice. Noprejudice willbecausedtotherespondentsifanew setofinternal.examinersis also appointed. To supporthis standlearned senior counselfor the petitionerplacedrelianceonthejudgmentoftheApexCourtreported, A If.Krainalr i..- & Ojs.Para15and16havebeenhighlighted. Itispointedoutthatthe stateofmindofanindividual isnotknownfromhisexterior;sinceit is going to be a group discussion by the external and the internal examiners,it would be in the fitness ofthings that ifthe internal examiners arereplaced by anew setofinternalexaminers.

5. On advance notice the respondents have put in appearance: They have negated the submission ofthe petitioner.Learned counsel forrespondentsrightly pointoutthatthe question ofprejudice quathe internal examiners wasneverraised before this court atthetime when arguments were heard andthejudgmentwasdelivered on20.09.2017. On this point learned senior counsel,for the petitioner has drawn attention ofthis courtto W.P.(C)5868/2017 with particular reference to ground J. This ground has been perused. It has only laid down a fact,the prayers made in the petition W.P.(C)5868/2017 have also been perused. They only lay a challenge to the practical/ clinical/, oral examination carried out by the respondent and this was for the reason that one ofthe e^ttemal examiners was not from outside the state. Asnoted suprathis argument-ofthe petitionerhasfoundfavour with this court and this Courthad ordered that a re-examination shall be conducted by a new set of.external examiners; the internal examiners remained untouched..6. The prejudice qua the internal examiners not having been argued atthe firststage,therespondentsrightly pointoutthatthe bar ofOrder II Rule 2CPC would prevail.That apartit does notnow lie inthe mouth onthe petitionerstoraise a dispute which earlier did not arisefor reasons bestknownto it. Outofthe six petitionersin whose,favour the order dated 20.09.2017 had been passed all ofthem are presentin this court. They have all been queried. Admittedly each oneofthem haspassedinthetheorypaper. Theyhavegot59,55,60, 56,53 and 63 percent marks in their theory papers. None ofthem have failed the theory paper. The question oftheir heing prejudiced byasecond re-evaluation bythesame setofinternalexaminesisnot made out. This submission was never made at the time when the order dated 20.09.2017 was passed.

7. Learned counselforthe respondenthas drawn attention ofthis court to the roster which is iaid down in each academic year by the respondent / University which ciearly provides that m a particuiar academicyearaparticularlistoftheinternal/externalexaminerswill evaluate the papers ofthe candidates. It is oniy in terms of the directions contained intheorder dated 20.09.2017thatthisrosterhas been changed and that is only for the purpose ofpractical / oral / clinicalexamination. Theorderdated20.09.2017had nottouchedthe internal examiners. No bias / prejudice had been levelled at that Stage.

8. Thispetitionisnothingbutanabuseofthe processofthecourt. Itis dismissed. -

9. In the light of the aforenoted observation the application seeking clarificationis also dismissed.

10. This court has refrained from imposing costs only for the reason that the petitioners who are present before this court are quaiified doctors who are seeking to espouse their cause hut also notingthesubmissionofthelearnedseniorcounselforthepetitioners that the dismissal ofthe petition with costs may by itself cast an aspersionuponthepetitioners(withoutcommentingonthemeritsof thisargument);thiscourtisthusnotimposingcosts.

11. Thewritpetitionandtheapplicationarebothdismissed. Review Pet.439/2017

12. At the request ofthe parties the date has been pre-poned for today.- The date of05.12.2017 stands cancelled. In the light ofthe order passed bythe DivisionBench on09.11.2017inLPA nofurther orders are called for in this petition. endermeetkaur,j