MUMBAI, March 26: It was Ordinance 234, on which Vice-Chancellor Snehalata Deshmukh had hinged her entire case, that finally gave her in. Today in his show-cause notice to the vice-chancellor, Governor P C Alexander categorically rejected the university’s contention that Ordinance 234 gave it powers to amend a result up to six months after it was declared.
Demanding why the eight grace marks granted to all final-year MBBS students in the Preventive and Social Medicine (PSM) paper should not be set aside, he held that it was beyond the competence of the University of Mumbai to award grace marks to students after results were declared.
The notice sent by the governor clearly points out that Ordinance 234 relates to the use of unfair practices, fraud or malpractices, of which there were none in this case. The grace marks were given just because the students had not been able to attempt some questions in the PSM paper.The examination for the final MBBS were conducted in November 1998.
However, soon afterthe correction of papers started, paper-setters and moderators found out that the result in PSM was abysmally low – a pass percentage of just 40 per cent. It was then decided to grant a grace of a maximum of six marks. Following this the pass percentage went up from 40 to 65 and the results were declared on January 12.
The largesse of eight grace marks given by Deshmukh was in addition to these six marks, and thus it rightly shocked the medical fraternity.
Express Newsline, wrote a series of reports on the blatantly illegal decision of the University, prompting both Health and Medical Education Minister Daulatrao Aher as well as Governor Alexander to swing into action.
While Aher asked the Maharashtra Medical Council to conduct a probe into the marks scandal, Alexander sought the opinion of Advocate General C J Sawant.On the basis of the legal opinion, Alexander held that it was beyond the powers of the University to declare a second result, particularly when there was neither a fraud or malpracticeinvolved in the first one. The governor also held that the decision of the University to grant eight grace marks was also wrong. The Mumbai University wrongly interpreted Ordinance 234. It was improper on the part of the University to grant eight grace marks, when there was no such provision,” Alexander said in his show-cause notice to the Vice-Chancellor.
Story continues below this ad
Presuming that the Preventive and Social Medicine (PSM) paper was indeed difficult, this is the procedure the University of Mumbai should have followed while giving grace marks:
If the paper is really difficult or out of syllabus, the students either individually or their associations, make representations to the deans of their respective colleges or to the Vice-Chancellor immediately after they appear for the paper.
The point to note here is that any protest has to be lodged before correction of papers takes place and the result is declared.
If the representations are received directly by the Vice-Chancellor, under theMaharashtra Universities Act, he or she, has to place the same before the Board of Examination for appropriate action.
The Board then takes the opinion of the concerned moderators, paper setters and examination convenors. After thorough discussion and debate, the committee comprising moderators, paper setters and convenors, makes specific observations on the representations and rules if the paper was really out of syllabus or otherwise and if the students deserve grace marks. The committee also recommends the quantum of grace marks for the purpose.
The recommendations of the committee are then placed before the Board of Examinations presided over by the Vice-Chancellor. Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, the Board is fully empowered to take cognisance of the recommendations of the committee.
Once the Board takes a decision, the final result is declared accordingly. But grace marks are given only to the students who need the same to pass the examination.
And if grace marks aregiven the same is indicated on the mark-sheets by putting an asterisk mark.
If the paper is really difficult or out of syllabus, the students either individually or their associations, make representations to the deans of their respective colleges or to the Vice-Chancellor immediately after they appear for the paper.
But this is what it did:
As per official records of Mumbai University, none of the students made any representation either to the Dean or the Vice-Chancellor immediately after appearing for the PSM paper. In the absence of any complaint, as per the provisions of the Universities Act, final result was declared on January 12.
However, the Vice-Chancellor convened a special meeting of the Board of Examinations (BoE) to take cognisance of the representations received from the students after the final results had been declared.
The Board of Examinations then, on the basis of some reports received from the paper setters and moderators, decided to award eight grace marksto the unsuccessful students on the ground that they were unable to attempt the question paper.
However, the BoE’s decision was changed by Deshmukh again by ordering that grace marks should be given to all the students irrespective of whether they were successful or otherwise. This was done to side-step the necessity to put an asterisk mark on the mark-sheets. For, that small dot would have indicated that the students had passed by grace marks. And once a student passes by grace in any one subject, he/she is ineligible for distinction in other subjects even if they score above 75 per cent.
The missing asterisk is what brings the whole exercise under a thick cloud of suspicion because it indicates that the university was worried about only a few students who were ineligible for a distinction in other subjects because they passed PSM by grace. The missing asterisk has two uses: one, it allows people to claim distinction in other subjects and a distinction in any subject gets the student a 10 percent additional marks at the post-graduate entrance. Thus, helping students pass a difficult paper was just an excuse.
Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, there is no provision of altering finally declared result. The Act specifically prohibits awarding a second marksheet, except in case of revaluation.
