Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Nitesh Kumar Anand — Appellant
Versus
University Of Delhi And Others — Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9741 of 2019
Decided on : 25-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv., Hardik Rupal, Adv., Prang Newmai, Adv., Sunil Mittal, Adv., Rajiv Thukral, Adv., Sangeeta Dass, Adv., Kousik Ghosh, Adv., Aditi Shastri, Adv., T. Singhdev, Adv., Arunima Pal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an independent reevaluation of an examination paper when there is a contradiction in the initial evaluation, as supported by relevant legal provisions and case law.
Headnote:
Examination - University of Delhi - Clause 3 of the notification dated 01.11.2011 - Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. - [Part-IV Surgery-II, Evaluation, Independent Examiner] - The court discussed the contradiction in the evaluation of the examination paper and emphasized the need for an independent examiner to reevaluate the paper, citing Clause 3 of the notification dated 01.11.2011 and the judgment in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the contradiction in the evaluation of an examination paper by the University of Delhi, where marks were not allocated by the examiner against answers, leading to a petition for reevaluation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the examination paper needed to be examined by an independent examiner other than the one who initially evaluated it, and directed the University of Delhi to take necessary steps for reevaluation.
Issues: The main issue was the contradiction in the evaluation of the examination paper and the need for an independent reevaluation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an independent examiner to reevaluate the examination paper, citing Clause 3 of the notification dated 01.11.2011 and the judgment in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the University of Delhi to have the examination paper examined by an independent examiner, and to communicate the result to the petitioner within three days of such examination.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
On 11.09.2019, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, I had made the following observations :
2. Apart from anything else, what is curious and completely unexplained at least at this stage, is the contradiction between the contents of the opening sheet of the written test taken by the petitioner in respect of Paper No.IV (Surgery II) and what is apparent from a visual examination of the answer sheet enclosed therewith.
2.1 The opening sheet adverts to marks which add up to 9 (nine) whereas a perusal of the answer sheet would show that no marks have been allotted by the examiner against answers set forth therein.
3. The impugned order of the University of Delhi, which is, dated 14.08.2019, inter alia, states as follows :
Part-IV Surgery-II Part-D Questions had been checked properly and marks have been added on the inside now NO CHANGES TO THE MARKS.
3.1 Thus, as is apparent, even according to the University of Delhi, no marks had been allocated by the examiner when the answer sheet of the petitioner was evaluated in the first instance.
4 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the University of Delhi, says that he will revert with instructions in the matter.
5. Apart from anything else, Mr. Rupal will also obtain instructions as to whether the University of Delhi will be willing to have the paper, in issue, evaluated afresh by an independent examiner.
6. Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that he does not wish to press any other aspect in the instant petition.
7. Renotify the matter on 25.09.2019.
2. Since then, the University of Delhi has filed a counter affidavit in the petition which has been placed on record by Mr. Rupal. As would be evident from the proceedings of 11.09.2019, the issue which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, there was an evaluation of the concerned paper; reference to which is made in paragraph 3 of the order dated 11.09.2019.
3. The University of Delhi in its counter affidavit to my utter surprise, incredulously takes the following stand to defend, what is, to my mind, a completely indefensible conduct of the examiner :
8. In fact as in the present case, even the answer sheet of Part-C of Surgery-II paper was checked by one examiner while the answer sheet of Part D Surgery-II answer sheet was checked by another examiner. It is normal practice of some examiners to award the marks only on the front page of the answer sheet and not inside the answer sheet corresponding to each answer. However, in case any student has any grievance that his answer sheet does not have marks corresponding to each answer then in such case the University sends the answer sheet back to the examiner for consideration by the same examiner. (emphasis is mine)
4. Mr. Rupal says that when the petitioner brought to the notice of the University of Delhi that the concerned subject paper did not show that the questions and answers given against them had been checked and that only the front sheet contained the marks, the matter was referred to the Director (Department of Surgery), Maulana Azad Medical College (hereafter referred to as Director, MAMC).
4.1 Notably, the petitioners concerns were referred by the Deputy Director (Examinations) of the University of Delhi to Director, MAMC vide communication dated 05.08.2019 based on the request made by the petitioner on the same date i.e. 05.08.2019.
5. The Director, MAMC, it appears wrote back on 08.08.2019 to the Deputy Director (Examinations) that the paper had been checked properly and that the marks had been added now in the inside sheets of the subject paper and, therefore, there was no change in the marks accorded to the petitioner.
6. Mr. Rupal says that this procedure of examining answer sheets is perfectly in order.
7. On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the MCI, submits that in the give
