Two professors of the Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences (PGIDS), Rohtak, appointed as examiners for evaluating answer sheets of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery examination the BDS (final-year) conducted in January, have landed into controversy.
The authorities of Pt. BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak (UHSR), have issued show-cause notices to them, for alleged unsatisfactory evaluation work and discrepancies in the marking of answer sheets.
The notices direct the professors to submit detailed explanations within seven days, stating why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them under the relevant university ordinances. The proposed action may include removal from examination-related duties and debarment from future evaluation assignments for a specified period, subject to the decision of the competent authority.
Confirming the development, UHSR Vice-Chancellor (VC) Dr HK Aggarwal said the university viewed examination-related lapses seriously and would not tolerate negligence in the evaluation process.
“This step has been taken to ensure that no student’s future is compromised. Providing a transparent and academically sound environment remains the university’s top priority. Strict action will be taken against anyone found responsible for irregularities or shortcomings in answer sheet evaluation work,” he added.
The VC informed “We received multiple complaints and representations from students regarding the marking pattern and quality of evaluation.
The students alleged that they had been awarded disproportionately low marks and their answer scripts had not been assessed fairly. Acting swiftly, detailed scrutiny of the evaluation process was conducted. As part of an exceptional review exercise, a number of answer scripts were independently re-checked by senior subject experts from government dental colleges to ascertain the veracity of the allegations,” said the VC.
Dr Aggarwal further maintained that the comparative analysis between the original evaluation and the independent expert assessment revealed substantial variations in awarded marks.
“During the review, around 84 answer scripts assessed by both the examiners were scrutinised. In view of the deficiencies detected in the evaluation process, average marks were awarded to the affected students, following which the revised examination results were declared,” said the VC.
The university has stated that such inconsistencies may have adversely impacted the academic interests of students and have also raised serious questions regarding the discharge of examination duties entrusted to the examiner.
