The result of revaluation, whether it increases or decreases the marks, is binding on the student and the University.

Headnote:
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY ACT, 1974 - SECTION 64 - RULE 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 159 - VALIDITY AND INTERPRETATION - REVALUATION OF ANSWER BOOKS - APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS - ADVERSE CHANGE IN MARKS - BINDING EFFECT - UNDERTAKING BY STUDENT - SCOPE AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:

Two writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of Rule 4 of Ordinance No. 159 framed under section 40 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974, and the interpretation of the Ordinance. The petitioners, medical students, were dissatisfied with the valuation of their answer books in the final MBBS examination and applied for revaluation. However, the revaluation resulted in an adverse change in their marks, leading to their failure in the examination.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 4 of Ordinance No. 159, which authorizes the Vice-Chancellor to appoint examiners for revaluation from the list prepared under section 64 of the Act, is valid and does not contravene section 64. The court also held that the result of revaluation, whether it increases or decreases the marks, is binding on the student and the University.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 4 of Ordinance No. 159, which empowers the Vice-Chancellor to appoint examiners for revaluation, is contrary to section 64 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974? 2. Whether the result of revaluation can be varied to the detriment of the student seeking revaluation under the Ordinance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 64 of the Act contemplates the preparation of a panel of approved examiners, but it does not specify who should select a particular examiner from the list for revaluation of particular answer books. This decision can be taken by the Vice-Chancellor under section 11(5) of the Act. 2. Revaluation is a part of the examination process, and the result of revaluation, whether it increases or decreases the marks, is binding on the student and the University. The student is required to give an undertaking to this effect before applying for revaluation.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the rules were discharged.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---A common question of law relating to (i) validity of Rule 4 of Ordinance No. 159 "prescribing rules for revaluation of answer books of examinees at University Examination" framed under section 40 of the Nagpur University Act, 1974 (the NU Act), (ii) interpretation of the Ordinance, are involved in these two petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Writ petitioner Lalit Taori (Writ Petition No. 536 of 1985) appeared for the Final M.B.B.S. Examination of Winter 1984 held by the Nagpur University and was declared successful. In the subject Medicine (Paper-I), he was awarded 49 out of 100 marks. He was not satisfied with the valuation of this paper as the marks were not as per his reasonable expectation, He, therefore, on the 17th December, 1984, applied for revaluation of this paper as provided for in the Ordinance No. 159. University informed the petitioner some time in March 1985 that as a result of revaluation, there was adverse change in the marks from original 49 to 42. As a consequence the petitioners result was revised and he was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner sought information from the Registrar of the University on certain matters relating to the procedure that is followed in the matter of revaluation. According to him, only vague reply was given and hence this petition. Writ petitioner Kumari Vandana Bhishikar (Writ Petition No. 568 of 1985) appeared for the Final M.B.B.S. Examination of Winter 1984. She was awarded 55 out of 100 marks in Paper-I and 57 out of 100 marks in the subject Obstetrics and Gynaecology and 59 out of 100 marks in Paper-I of the subject Paediatrics. She was not satisfied with the valuation of these papers as she did not get marks as per her reasonable expectation and, therefore, on 8th January, 1985, applied for revaluation. She received a communication in the second week of March 1985 that as a result of revaluation, there was an adverse change in the marks awarded to the petitioner in both papers of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. She was awarded 45 marks each. In the subject of Paediatrics, marks were not changed. Aggrieved by the result of the revaluation, she addressed a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 14th March, 1985 requesting him to restore the original marks. As this was not done, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Only two points were canvassed before us. The first is that the Rule 4 of the Ordinance to the extent it authorises the Vice-Chancellor to make appointment of examiners for revaluation, is contrary to section 64 of the NU Act and, therefore, invalid. We begin with extracting relevant Rules 3, 4 and 5 for ready reference :

"3. (i) An examinee may apply for revaluation for one or more papers

(ii) The examinee applying for revaluation of his answer-book(s) shall have to give an undertaking to the effect that---

(a) The result of revaluation shall be binding of him/her and that he/she shall accept the result of revaluation instead of the original valuation.

(b) The University shall have the right to re-examine all his/her papers even though he/she seeks revaluation only for one paper or some of them. In such case, the decision of the University shall be binding on him/her.

(iii) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to scripts of Practical Examinations/Term Work/Internal Assessment/Sessional Marks/Dissertation/Thesis/Viva-Voce and Examinations where marking is not provided.

4. (i) Appointment of examiners for revaluation shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor from the list of examiner's recommended by the section 64 Committee and approved by the Executive Council. The answer books shall be revalued by 2 examiners other than the original examiner who valued them initially. In case the revaluation warrants the appointment of an examiner from outside the University area or in case where no name is available or found suitable in the given list, the Vice-Chancellor is authorised to make such appoin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document