Academic matters are best left to academics, and sympathy or compassion does not play a role in directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner being a Post Graduate student is knocking at the doors of Writ Court inter alia for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-University 'to conduct revaluation of answer script bearing No. Q.P. Code- 7371/Paediatrics-TP1 at Annexure-C.

2. Notice to second respondent-Institution having been dispensed with, learned Senior Panel Counsel on request appearing for the respondent-University, opposes the Writ Petition contending that the Fifth Valuator having accomplished the valuation, under the new Ordinance, there is no warrant for Courts interference, since essentially the matter relates to the domain of academics.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the student having secured sufficient marks in Practical and Theory examinations and in vivavoce, with 50% aggregate marks could not have been failed in the entire course for want of one single mark in the Theory Examination is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as the fact matrix of the petition squarely fits into the provisions of 'Ordinance Governing Post Graduate including P.G. Diploma and Super Speciality Answer Script Evaluation'; Para 3(ii)a of the same reads as under:

'Deviation Valuation:-

a. Means the valuation conducted by the 5th valuator as per this Ordinance in case of deviation between the total marks awarded by any two valuators in the General Valuation, as stated in 3.(i)(a), is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper. The decimals shall not be founded off while calculating the cutoff for the deviation. The algebraic formula for the purpose of 5th valuation shall be as follows:

If the total mark awarded by the any one valuator among the four is X, and that awarded by any other among the four valuators is Y and the maximum marks prescribed is Z, then answer paper goes for the fifth valuation if (X-Y) 60.15 X Z.

(b) True it is that arguably there was an error in the sense that the differential/deviation of valuation exceeded 15% of the maximum cut-off marks prescribed for the paper in question; for the very reason the said answer paper was sent to Fifth Evaluator in terms of said Ordinance and accordingly the Fifth Evaluator has accomplished his valuation too; thus, the grievance of the petitioner if any, has been granted redressal by processing the same in accordance with the Ordinance in question and therefore, the said grievance cannot be resurrected as a fresh cause for maintaining the Writ Petition when no complaint is made against the fifth evaluator, as such.

4. Both the counsel for the parties in support of conflicting versions banked upon the same decision of the Honble Apex Court in Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 52 , paragraphs 30,31 & 32 of which reads as under:

'30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any 'inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation' and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key