Punjab Homoeopathic Medical Association (PHMA) has moved the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking directions to restrain six officials of Guru Ravidas Ayurved University, Hoshiarpur, including the vice-chancellor, from associating in the university examinations until their names are cleared by the vigilance department in re-totalling of marks' inquiry in Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) examination of November 2011.
The Punjab vigilance bureau, on the high court directions, is probing the allegations of re-evaluation/tampering with the answersheets of various students of BAMS course, under the garb of re-totalling. It was on May 20 that the high court had directed the vigilance bureau to get the inquiry conducted by an officer not below the rank of the superintendent of police and to submit the report within six weeks.
The petition filed through Dr Ajay Sharma, president of PHMA, came up for hearing before the vacation bench of justices Augustine George Masih and justice Naresh Kumar Sanghi on Friday. The bench has now posted the matter for hearing on July 10 before the regular bench.
The officials who are under the vigilance bureau's scanner are vice-chancellor OP Upadhyaya, dean (academic) Dr Parmod Kumar, deputy registrars KP Singh and PS Aulakh, and superintendent Kaman Singh.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate RK Handa argued before the court that since earlier an inquiry committee had indicted the six officials of the university for their involvement in the scandal of re-totalling of marks the university authorities should not associate these officials in conducting the examination of BAMS course in the interest of justice and fair examination process.
{{/usCountry}}Appearing for the petitioner, advocate RK Handa argued before the court that since earlier an inquiry committee had indicted the six officials of the university for their involvement in the scandal of re-totalling of marks the university authorities should not associate these officials in conducting the examination of BAMS course in the interest of justice and fair examination process.
{{/usCountry}}The court was told that earlier a number of students applied for re-totalling on the basis of marks conveyed to them by the university. However, the retotalling committee found that even as per university records, marks were different from those conveyed to students. The petitioner had also informed that in one case, the marks were increased after retotalling from 14 to 64.