Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petitions Seeking Grace Marks in MBBS Examinations, Upholds 2023 UGMEB Guidelines

10 October 2024 3:55 PM

By: sayum


Karnataka High Court, in the case of Mr. Abin Thomas Sebastian v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others, ruled against the petitioners' plea for awarding grace marks in their MBBS examinations or revaluation of their answer scripts. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav upheld the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, which eliminated the provision of grace marks, rejecting the applicability of older regulations that permitted such marks. The ruling sets an important precedent regarding the evolution of examination standards in professional education.

The case involved multiple petitions filed by MBBS students from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), seeking the award of grace marks in their January 2024 examinations. The petitioners relied on the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019, which allowed up to five grace marks for failing students. The primary issue was the conflict between the 2019 regulations and the newly enforced 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, which abolished grace marks.

The petitioners also sought to challenge the University's evaluation policies, specifically the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, governing revaluation procedures, claiming the need for a more favorable re-evaluation method.

Applicability of 2023 UGMEB Guidelines: The key legal question was whether the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, which eliminated grace marks, could be applied retroactively to students who were admitted under the 2019 regulations. Petitioners argued that the 2019 rules should apply to their examinations, particularly as the provision of grace marks was included.

The Court, however, held that educational standards are dynamic and can evolve over time. The 2023 guidelines came into effect on August 1, 2023, and were applicable to all examinations held thereafter, including those in January 2024. As the court noted:

"The standards of evaluation prevailing on the date of the examination are the standards that apply, regardless of when students were admitted."

The Court emphasized that students have no vested right to maintain evaluation standards at the time of their admission, especially when academic policies are subject to continuous improvement.

Challenge to University’s Ordinance on Revaluation: Petitioners also challenged the validity of the RGUHS Ordinance of 05.09.2022, which followed a dual-evaluation system, arguing that they should be entitled to further revaluation of their answer scripts. However, the Court upheld the validity of the Ordinance, citing prior decisions that established its legality.

"The evaluation process falls within the domain of academic policy, and courts should refrain from interfering in such matters," observed the Court.

The Ordinance was deemed a legitimate exercise of the University’s authority, ensuring standardization and fairness in evaluations.

The Court ruled that the 2019 regulations were no longer in force after the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines came into effect, which explicitly prohibited grace marks.

"The provision of grace marks under the 2019 Regulations must give way to the new standards," the Court asserted, confirming that the 2023 guidelines prevail for all exams conducted post-August 2023.

The Court dismissed the petitioners' request for further revaluation, affirming that the procedures laid out in the RGUHS Ordinance are valid and final. It reiterated that the judiciary cannot dictate academic policies, especially when the University has established a clear system for evaluations.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, denying the award of grace marks and rejecting challenges to the University's revaluation policy. The ruling underscores that changes in educational standards are both necessary and binding, regardless of the time of student admission. Academic bodies retain the discretion to modify evaluation standards to ensure the quality and integrity of medical education.

Date of Decision: September 19, 2024

Mr. Abin Thomas Sebastian v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others

 

Latest Legal News