Compromise formula on marks scam fails

The present status of the imbroglio whereby 61 student doctors have petitioned thecourt against the withdrawal of the eight grace marks in the PSM paper by the Chancellor is this: thirty-one of these students who had earlier failed the paper, have now been declared passed after revaluation. The issue now only concerns the remaining 30 students. Since all the students have already completed their internship in the past two months, the University counsel Rui Rodrigues in a manner of a fait accompli, sought the court8217;s permission to bend rules to declare them passed.

According to an ordinance, the University can declare the new results after a revaluation only if the marks changed are 10 per cent or more of the total marks of the paper. For the PSM paper, which has a maximum of 80 marks, a student would have to obtain a minimum of eight marks to be eligible for the change. So if a student obtains eight marks or more or loses eight marks or more in the revaluation, his/her marksheet is altered accordingly. However, if a student gains or loses less than eight marks, the increase ordecrease is not mentioned in his marksheet.

Counsel for the university Rodrigues submitted that if it was acceptable, the court could allow them to circumvent this clause. For the 30 students who are failing, the university would acknowledge whatever marks the students have obtained in their revaluation, be it 3, 4 or 5 and add the six grace marks, originally given to them by the conveners of PSM paper.

This move would have kept the Chancellor8217;s order to revoke the eight grace marks earlier granted by the University, intact. All the counsels involved, including counsels for the students Y S Jahagirdar and E P Bharucha then withdrew to discuss the solution offered. However, when they returned after lunch break, counsel for the Chancellor C J Sawant stated that the minutes of the order must include a line that the Chancellor8217;s order stands. Justice Ashok Agarwal remarked that it was implicit in the order. Rodrigues too objected. 8220;It is implied in the order. If a line is specifically included, the mediawill highlight it,8221; he submitted.

Sawant then informed the court that the Chancellor objected to the University8217;s move to give six marks to all the failing students even if it did not help them tide through the paper. The University on the other hand wanted to add this six marks and then include Ordinance 224 whereby a student is automatically eligible for grace marks in his aggregate to pass the examination. Objecting to this move, Advocate General Sawant said, 8220;They should realise that they are circumventing an ordinance.8221;

Justice D K Deshmukh too remarked that the University should stick to the Academic Council resolution, 8220;Are you offering six marks without the students requiring it?8221; he asked.

To break the impasse, counsel for one of the group of petitioners, E P Bharucha said that they would restrict themselves to the present petitioners. 8220;We would be glad if the university tells us exactly how many of the students fall short of six marks for passing,8221; he submitted. Justice Aggarwal thenorally directed Rodrigues to do so. The matter is now posted for tomorrow.