IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Deepak Kumar Son of Bhola Rai – Appellant
Versus
The Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University Muzaffarpur through its Vice Chancellor – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8315 of 2019
Decided on : 10-03-2021
University Law – Publication of result – serious allegations have been made by the University as regards the marks shown in the examination of the petitioner – the Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee to inquire into the allegations of irregularities and tampering of marks and that committee has submitted its report raising serious issues against the integrity of the tabulators and recommended for cancellation of result and the same has been accepted by the Examination Committee, who are the expert bodies – case being devoid of any merit, dismissed. (Paras 16 & 19)
2017(2) PLJR 468, C.W.J.C. No. 6281/2018, D/- 15.05.2018—Referred.
JUDGMENT :
The writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:
For direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet after rechecking of the answer sheet of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours) part II.
For direction to the respondents to recheck the answer sheet of paper IV of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours) part II on the basis of the question paper of the examination which has held after cancellation of exam instead of previous question paper of cancelled examination of such paper.
For direction to the respondents to grant any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the fact and circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a student of L.S. College, Muzaffarpur had appeared in the examination of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), Part- I and passed with total marks of 371 out of 500. He, then appeared in the examination of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), Part- II and passed the said examination with 267 marks out of 500. According to him the petitioner was promoted to Part- III of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), he also appeared in the examination of Part- III but his result has not been published.
3. It is his further submission that from the information disclosed to the petitioner on his application under Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI Act’), it has been found that answer sheets of both the papers have not been checked properly. In paper-III of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), Part- II, the petitioner has answered five questions and the examiner has checked the answer sheet, also gave marks but in tabulation of the answer sheet the marks has been deducted. In the tabular chart which the petitioner has shown the discrepancies in the tabulation as under:
Ques. No. Marks provided by the Examiner Marks Given in tabulation sheet of answer paper
1 12 10
4 12 10
5 8 8
6 12 10
7 12 10
4. It is further submitted that in the answer sheet of paper-IV of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), Part- II it has been found that the same has been examined on the basis of the cancelled examination question paper instead of the question paper by which the examination was held. According to the petitioner, wrong markings have been done in the answer sheets. He has enclosed a photocopy of the question paper of 2016 (Re-exam) as well as the answer sheets of the paper-IV of B.Sc. (Chemistry Honours), Part- II as Annexure ‘3’ series.
5. This Court has been informed that the examination of paper- IV in Part- II was held at M.P.S. Science College, Muzaffarpur which was cancelled due to some reasons. The examination was again held but in the subsequent examination the question has been changed. It is the case of the petitioner that in both the question papers, the questions were the same but there numberings were different in the subsequent question paper. It is stated that the examiner has checked the answer sheets on the basis of the cancelled examination question paper and, therefore, he has given wrong markings.
6. The petitioner claims that he had raised grievance before respondent no. 2 who forwarded his letter to respondent no. 4 but respondent no. 4 has not considered the same. He referred the matter to the Chairman, Examination Board (respondent no. 3). The said respondent no. 3 issued a notice on 26.10.2018 in which it is stated that the meeting of the Examination Board of the University will be held on 27.10.2018 and some agenda including the petitioner’s grievance shall be considered. In this regard, Annexure ‘4’ and ‘5’ to the writ application have been placed before this Court. Annexure ‘5’ is the copy of the notice of the meeting of the Examination Board of the University scheduled for 27.10.2018. One of the agendas of the said meeting is with regard to the rectification of the result of this petitioner.
7. The
The court emphasized the importance of correct roll number marking and upheld the authority of the respondent to re-evaluate the answer script based on the correct roll number.
The finality of public examination results and the reluctance to interfere with expert decisions, as well as the absence of provisions for re-evaluation in the rules, precluded the petitioner's right....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.