Student's dissatisfaction can't be ground for revaluation of answer sheet: Karnataka HC
Can be ordered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in exceptional cases of mala-fides, tampering and gross negligence. Not otherwise.
The Karnataka high court has observed that revaluation of an answer sheet should not be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different.
Can be ordered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in exceptional cases of mala-fides, tampering and gross negligence. Not otherwise.
The Karnataka high court has observed that revaluation of an answer sheet should not be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different.
"In my opinion, in rare and
exceptional cases where mala-fides or tampering or gross negligence in
valuation is made out, the high court may allow revaluation by exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. However,
revaluation is not to be ordered merely because another person is of the view
that the marks should have been different" Justice H G Ramesh has observed
while dismissing the petition filed by one Maria Loraine Lydia, a 1st year MBBS
student of father Muller's Medical College, Mangaluru.
The Judge has also noted that
grievance of the petitioner was that she should have been awarded one mark more
and the same cannot be considered as a ground to order revaluation of the
answer sheet.
The petitioner had sought for
revaluation of her answer script in theory paper -2 of Biochemistry of first year
MBBS examination of RGUHS.
Lydia's counsel argued that the
first valuer had given 2.5 marks and the second valuer gave zero marks in
respect of question no.9. He further claimed that the petitioner got the same
answer valued by a professor and head of department at the Bangalore Medical
College and he had given 2.5 marks and the resultant effect is that she got one
marks less, 31 marks against 32.
___________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.52822/2015
(EDN-RES)
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF
DECEMBER 2015
BETWEEN:
MARIA LORAINE LYDIA
D/O DAVID B
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
I MBBS, FATHER MULLER’S MEDICAL
COLLEGE
KANKANADY, MANGALURU-575 002
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH
SCIENCES, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTAR
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4 TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226 OF
The constitution of India praying
to direct the R-1 university to award additional marks to the answer given by
the petitioner for question No.9 of bio chemistry theory paper-ii as per the
answer script at annx-D in the I MBBS examination in the subject of bio
chemistry theory paper-ii conducted by the R-1 university in June/July 2015 and
direct the R-1 university to refer the answer script of the petitioner in the
subject of bio chemistry theory paper-ii in the examination conducted in
june/july 2015 to a third examiner and etc.
This writ petition coming on for
preliminary hearing in ‘b’ group, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Whether revaluation of an answer
script could be ordered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution? This is the question that requires
determination in this writ petition.
2. In this writ petition,
petitioner, in substance, has sought for revaluation of her answer script in
Theory paper 2 of Biochemistry of first year M.B.B.S. examination of Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
3. I have heard Sri Ajoy Kumar
Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that as per the procedure, the answer script was
valued by two valuers and first valuer has given 2.5 and the second valuer has
given zero for question No.9. He submitted that the petitioner got the
aforesaid answer script valued by Professor and Head of Department of Bio
Chemistry, Bangalore Medical College and he has awarded 2.5 marks. He further
submitted that the total marks awarded is less by one mark. In effect, the argument
of the petitioner is that the University has awarded 31 marks whereas it ought
to have been 32.
5. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that this Court has got power to direct revaluation of an
answer script. In support of his submission, he relied on two decisions of the
Supreme Court in Sahiti vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences [(2009)1
SCC 599] and in President, Board of Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007)1
SCC 603]. He referred to the following observations made in Sahiti:
“32. The plea that there is
absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order
re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the Judgment impugned
should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re- evaluation of answer
scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and
permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the
decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and
whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and
in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the
authority.
38. There may be several
instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be
ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same.
However, if the authorities are
of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the
Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are
expert in academic matters”.
He also referred to the following
observations made in President, Board of Secondary Education:
“6. Award of marks by an Examiner
is to be fair, and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible
under the Statute, the Examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to
ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck
should be introduced. An examination is a stepping stone on career advancement
of a student. Absence of a provision for re-evaluation cannot be a shield for
the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script.
That would be against the very
concept for which re-evaluation is impermissible”.
6. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned
Counsel for the respondents submitted that unless the valuation is clearly
arbitrary, it is not permissible to direct revaluation of an answer script. In support
of his submission, he relied on the following decisions:
(i) Pranshu Indurkhya vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2005 Madhya Pradesh 152)
(ii) C.Jagadiswaran vs. Vice-Chancellor,
rendered by Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 1 April 2014 [W.P. (MD)
No.172 of 2014]
(iii) Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board [(2012)1 SCC 157]
7. I have examined the matter in
the light of the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties.
When revaluation may be ordered
is explained by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pranshu Indurkhya
vs. State of M.P. [AIR 2005 Madhya Pradesh 152]. It is useful to extract the
following principles laid down therein relating to revaluation:
“7. The principles in regard to
revaluation may therefore be summarised thus:
(a) A student has no right to
seek revaluation of an answer script unless the rules governing the examination
specifically provide for revaluation. A provision for 'scrutiny' or
'retotalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not
entitle a student to seek re-valuation.
(b) Where the rules do not provide
for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the
answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional
cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been
caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(c) Ascertainment of mala fides
and tampering depends on facts of the case and for that purpose, if necessary,
the answer script may be summoned.
(d) Ascertainment of "gross
negligence resulting in injustice" is a more difficult exercise. A student
who has consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years
examinations, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may consider
it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer
scripts.
(The mere fact that a student
feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be a ground to
call for answer scripts). On securing the answer-script, the Court may examine
it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court
finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice which shocks its judicial
conscience, it may direct re-valuation.
(e) But change in marks on
account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for
revaluation.
Different examiners may evaluate
the same answers differently resulting in lesser or higher marks being awarded.
Re-valuation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view
that the marks should have been different. In traditional examinations where
the purpose is to test the knowledge, grammar, logic or reasoning, the
perceptions about the answers may vary from examiner to examiner. (Of course
where the examination is of objective type, where the student is merely to mark
'yes' or 'no', or choose one of the multiple answers, there cannot be any
difference in valuation).
(f) While fairness in
examinations is impliedly assured by the Board, exactness in valuation in
individual cases can neither be assured nor be claimed. Certain margin of human
error, over-sight, and perceptional difference is part of the valuation system,
where thousands or lacs of answer scripts are evaluated by hundreds or
thousands of evaluators.
Therefore, even where the Court
secures the answer script and examines it or gets it examined by an independent
teacher, re-valuation should not be ordered merely because there is some
difference in valuation or because one or two answers have not been valued or
have been wrongly valued. To repeat, mala fides, tampering or gross negligence
(and not small or negligible errors or perceptional changes) is a condition
precedent for ordering re-valuation.”
I am in respectful agreement with
the principles extracted above.
8. In my opinion, even where the
rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court may direct revaluation in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in rare
and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering or gross negligence in
valuation is made out. However, revaluation is not to be ordered merely because
another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different.
9. As stated above, the grievance
of the petitioner is that she should have been awarded one mark more. This is no
ground for revaluation of the answer script. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
No comments:
Post a Comment