Dr. Prashant Babaji vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 10807/2018 decided on 30 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357135/1/WP10807-18-30-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 14. It is trite law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loathe to interfere with the marks awarded by a selection committee to the candidates who appear before them, save in exceptional circumstances of demonstrable arbitrariness or malafides. The case at hand is not where arbitrariness is writ large by way of any demonstration or malafides have been pleaded. The prayer sought in terms of the grounds urged is that the award of marks to the third respondent is on the higher side, both on journals and the interview. I cannot telescope my imagination to the minds of the selection committee to hold the marks awarded being excessive or insufficient. It is for the experts to award marks for publications. This Court while exercising judicial review would not sit in the armchair of experts and assess or award marks for such publications.
16. Cases referred to: Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305, Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372, Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal [(1990) 2 SCC 746, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan [(1990) 1 SCC 305, Chancellor v. Dr.Bijayananda Kar [(1994) 1 SCC 169, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik [(2000) 3 SCC 59], DentalCouncilof India v. SubhartiK.K.B.Charitable Trust [(2001) 5 SCC 486], Medical Council of India v. Sarang [(2001) 8 SCC 427], B.C.Mylarappa v. Dr.R. Venkatasubbaiah [(2008) 14 SCC 306, Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284, All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726].
17. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the plea of the petitioner that there is arbitrariness in awarding marks under the “fixed parameters” and in the interview would not hold water. As observed hereinabove, under the “fixed parameters” both the petitioner and the third respondent have been given equal marks. How much marks is to be given under those parameters is beyond the pane of judicial review. The other ground with regard to marks awarded in the interview being on the higher side to the third respondent also cannot be gone into as no malafides are pleaded and proved by the petitioner.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 