Evaluation By 4 Examiners Ensures Fairness, Eliminates Subjectivity & Bias: Karnataka HC Directs RGUHS To Re-Conduct Practicals For 70 MBBS Students

The Karnataka High Court has directed Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) to re-conduct practical/clinical exams in respect of over 70 students, for failing to conduct the practical exams as per regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India.

A single judge bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum said it is a settled principle of law that MCI which is now known as NMC has prescribed a set of four examiners for theory and practicals. "It goes without saying that every examiner has to independently assess and assign marks which is lacking in the present batch of petitions. Therefore, it is unfortunate that respondent-University and examiners in gross violation of the findings recorded by co-ordinate Bench are again repeating the same mistakes,” it held.

It directed the University to re-conduct practical/clinical exams in respect of the petitioners, in terms of Regulation 13 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, notified by the Medical Council of India. It rejected the contention of the University that there is no need for every examiner to assign individual marks in the column and said,

“The emergence and evaluation of concept of four examiners was on account of arbitral assessment by the examiners in theory as well as practical exams. The concept of having four examiners gained attention in recent years as a means to enhance accuracy, fairness and reliability of assessments. One of the primary drivers behind the emergence of concept of four examiners is the desire to address subjectivity and bias inherent in single or dual examiner assessment. Recognizing the trend and also based on statistics, the MCI has come out with an Ordinance pressing for four examiners for practical and theory.”

It directed theUniversity to fix the schedule for practical exams before the ensuing supplementary exams. "In the event, the petitioners succeed in the practical exams, results relating to theory appear has to be announced afresh before the ensuing supplementary exams.”

The petitioners contended that in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, four examiners must independently award marks and use their independent judgment and discretion to evaluate the students .

The University opposed the plea saying the petitioners are found to be selective as they have not chosen to question the assessment done in respect of those subjects where petitioners have cleared the exams. Thus the writ petitions are not maintainable.

It was also submitted that Petitioners were very well conversant with the Rules and the methodology that would be adopted by the University and cannot selectively question the process of conducting examinations only in respect of practical exams on the ground that examiners have not independently assessed and assigned marks.

The bench said the rule was brought into force to get over the issue of individual evaluators indulging in personal bias. "Therefore, the concept of four examiners was introduced to explore more diverse viewpoints to minimise the impact of these biases. The inclusion of four examiners brings about a collective decision making process, reducing the influence of individual prejudices and enhancing the overall fairness of practical and theory examinations.”

Noting that even in practical examinations also, the MCI thought of having four examiners so as to evaluate student’s the real world skills and competencies, the bench observed,

“The concept of four examiners fosters collaboration among professionals in the field. The inclusion of multiple experts in the evaluation process encourages the exchange of ideas, methodologies, and best practices. The collaboration stimulates professional growth and development among the examiners themselves, as they learn from one another and gain insights into different approaches to practical assessments. This continuous improvement contributes to the evolution and refinement of the concept itself.”

On meticulous examination of the mark sheet of practicals of all the petitioners, the Court noticed a very "disturbed trend" of conducting theory and practical exams without adhering to the standards prescribed by the MCI. The bench held,

“The Indian Medical Council Act which is found to be relatable to Entry 66 of List I admittedly prevails over any State enactment regulations framed by the Apex body with previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of Apex body i.e., MCI Act now known as NMC. Therefore, the Universities and examiners are bound by the regulations and theory and practical exams are to be conducted by the University in strict adherence to these regulations.”

Following which it allowed the petitions.

Aniruddha v RGUHS & connected matters

Case No: WP 7019/2023, c/w 9985 OF 2023 (EDN-RES), 7577/2023, 8381/2023, 8655/2023, 8837/2023, 9032/2023, 9433/2023, 9577/2023, 9702/2023 & 9834/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 241

Date of Order: 21-06-2023

Appearance for petitioners: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, Advocates Parshuram A L,

Prateek Chandramouli and Vidyashree KS, Mohammed Tahir, N K Ramesh.

For Respondents: Advocates Sachin B S, N Khetty, Suman Balige.

Click Here To Read/Download Order