Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Rajnish Kumar Mishra Son of Brahmchari Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7561 of 2023
Decided on : 25-07-2023
RE-EVALUATION - University Examination - Patna University Act, Section 29(2) - The court discussed the petitioner's request for re-evaluation of his assignment answer-sheet, citing the University's stance that there is no provision for re-evaluation as per Section 29(2) of the Patna University Act. The court referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to emphasize that judicial review cannot be extended to issue a writ for re-evaluation when there is no such provision under the Act or Examination Regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of B.A. (Hons.) in Psychology from Patna University, sought re-checking of his assignment answer-sheet after being declared fail due to obtaining zero marks, despite self-assessment indicating a passing score. The University refused re-evaluation, citing the absence of provision in the Examination Regulations and Section 29 of the Patna University Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case relied on self-assessment, seeking re-evaluation of the answer-sheet, while the University maintained that there is no provision for re-evaluation as per Section 29(2) of the Act. The court, in line with a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, concluded that the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to issue a writ for re-evaluation when there is no such provision under the Act or Examination Regulations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's request for re-evaluation of the assignment answer-sheet could be granted, considering the absence of provision for re-evaluation in the Patna University Act and Examination Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of provision for re-evaluation in the Patna University Act and Examination Regulations, as well as the application of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which disapproved the extension of judicial review to issue a writ for re-evaluation in the absence of specific provisions.
Final Decision: The writ application seeking re-evaluation of the assignment answer-sheet was dismissed by the court, as it found no merit in the petitioner's case due to the absence of provision for re-evaluation under the Patna University Act and Examination Regulations.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Patna University.
2. Let the rejoinder be taken on the record.
3. This writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
ii. For further issue an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus to declared the petition a pass candidate after re-checking the assignment answer-sheet of the petitioner in Psychology 7th paper of B.A. (Hons) – Part – III because the petitioner has rightly attempted and explained the answer and also assessed himself that he will secured minimum passing marks i.e. 45% but in spite of that the respondents have illegally given Zero (O) marks in Assignment of 7th paper (Psychology) B.A. (Hons) Part – III Examination.
iii. For further issue a suitable compensation to the petitioner for his mental harassment and reputation loss in the society because of the wrong result of the petitioner.
iv. For further any other relief/s, order/s, direction/s, may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Case of the petitioner
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is pursuing B.A. (Hons.) in Psychology from Directorate of Distance Education, Patna University. He had appeared in final examination of B.A. Part – III Psychology (Hons.) in the annual examination of the year 2022. He had submitted his assignment of 7th Paper on 25.06.2022 and attempted all questions very well, but when the result was published, the petitioner found that he had secured Zero (O) marks in 7th Paper (Hons.) as a result whereof he had been declared fail.
5. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result submitted his application on 12.09.2022 before the Examination Controller of Patna University and prayed for re-checking of the assignment answer-sheet of 7th Paper. The grievance of the petitioner is that the University did only recalculation (re-totaling) of the marks of the petitioner but did not allow re-evaluation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained a copy of the 7th Paper of assignment under the Right to Information Act on payment of cost. The petitioner has assessed himself and found that he should have secured the passing marks but he has been declared fail. It is submitted that the respondents are playing with the future and career of the petitioner hence under special and compelling circumstance the petitioner has approached this Court.
7. Earlier when this matter was heard on 27.06.2023, this Court passed the following order:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the answer sheets which have been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2004 that the answer-sheets have not at all been properly evaluated. According to him, the petitioner has obtained very good marks in other papers of home assignment, there was no plausible reason to award him zero marks in Honours Paper No. 7. Learned counsel has relied upon an order dated 07.04.2017 passed by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 575/2017 (Kavya Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) to submit that in exceptional circumstance, in the said case this Court directed the Chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board to look into the matter and get the answer-sheet of the petitioner re-checked/re-evaluated. He has also relied upon a copy of order dated 11.07.2018 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in which while rejecting the Letters Patent Appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench o
A candidate's right to request re-evaluation is not guaranteed and must align with the governing rules; judicial review in academic evaluations is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not merit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opportunity for re-evaluation of answer sheets cannot be claimed as a right, but is available only if the rules governing the examination ....
Re-evaluation of answer scripts is only permissible when the difference in marks exceeds 20%, as per statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
