The lack of scope for judicial review in the evaluation of answer sheets by academic bodies and the application of relevant rules for revaluation.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to constitute a new panel of three experts in the field of Sociology and revaluate the answer sheet on the principle of moderation.

2. Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner’s answer sheet has not been properly evaluated. He states that it is a case of mass failure inasmuch as about 250 out of 260 students of Shivaji College; 102 out of 120 students of Political (Hons) at Laxmibai College; 38 out of 50 students at Janki Devi Memorial College; 20 out 25 students at Keshav Mahavidyalaya failed to clear the paper called ‘Sociology in Contemporary India’. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon Delhi University's own Press Release dated 6 July, 2015. The relevant portion of the said Press Release is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“.....After careful consideration and extensive investigation, the University of Delhi has come to a preliminary conclusion that the problem concerns the following three colleges: the Shivaji College, the Laxmibai Collge and the Keshav Mahavidyalaya. Thus the University realizes that the extraordinarily high and unusual incidence of failures has occured with students of the three colleges; viz. Shivaji College, Laxmibai College and Keshav Mahavidyalaya in the discipline centred course Sociology of Contemporary India. A preliminary investigation has revealed that students of other colleges have performed as per usual patterns not only in this paper but also in other papers where the results are in accordance with normal patterns. The examination results of the students of these three above named colleges have displayed a deviation of very high proportions in the above named paper. This is an extreme and rare situation prevailing only in these three colleges. The University assures the concerned students of these three colleges that their answer scripts are being re-evaluated on a priority basis.....”

3. Mr. Mittal states that there has been total non-application of mind by the examiner while examining the answer script of the petitioner. He states that while answer to question No.4 was not assessed by the examiner, petitioner has been awarded marks with regard to question No.2 which she did not even attempt. He also states that while assessing the answer to question No.6, the examiner has assessed it in two parts awarding 6.5 and 6 marks at two places instead of one.

4. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for petitioner contends that as the petitioner’s answer script was properly checked only once by the revaluator, petitioner has been denied the opportunity of revaluation by a second examiner in accordance with the University rules. He also states that in view of the aforesaid contention, respondent-University was not justified in arriving at an average of the marks of the original examiner and the first Revaluator under Rule 4(b) of Rules for Revaluation of Delhi University.

5. Mr. Mittal further contends that the petitioner has been unduly subjected to strict evaluation even though she has a satisfactory academic performance throughout the three years course. He submits that the examiner’s variability, i.e., hawk or dove effect has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 720.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that since many students complained of low scoring in "Sociology Contemporary India", Delhi University on its own decided to allow revaluation of the answer scripts in the said subject. He states that the revaluation of answer script was carried out as per the rules/regulations of the Delhi University.

7. Mr. Rupal states that as even after rechecking by the initial examiner, petitioner’s marks remained the same, the University sent the petitioner’s answer script for revaluation to an examiner other th