Back
2009 Supreme(Ker) 1089
High Court of Kerala
Antony Dominic, J.
Laiji R - Appellant
Versus
University Of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 15926 of 2009
Decided On : 14-10-2009
The right of a candidate for revaluation of answer scripts will be governed by the regulations framed by the University and in the absence of enabling regulations, revaluation cannot be sought.
Headnote:
Revaluation - University Examination - M.Ed student - Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education - Regulations, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another V. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarshath etc.,(1984 SC 1543), West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education V. Ayan Das (2007 (4) KLT 535(SC) - The court discussed the regulations governing revaluation of answer scripts and cited relevant case laws to establish that the right of a candidate for revaluation of answer scripts will be governed by the regulations framed by the University and in the absence of enabling regulations, revaluation cannot be sought. The court found that the actions of the University in revaluing the answer script and issuing revised marks were illegal and called for interference.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a M.Ed student, secured 47 marks in an examination and was eligible for 3rd rank. However, the rank certificate was not issued despite representations made. The 4th respondent, who initially failed in the same paper, managed to secure second rank after getting her answer paper revalued multiple times. The petitioner alleged that the revaluation was done in violation of regulations and misused the directions of a previous court judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the actions of the University in revaluing the answer script and issuing revised marks were illegal and called for interference. The court also noted that the University attempted to overreach the court's orders by issuing a provisional certificate to the 4th respondent despite a court directive not to issue the rank certificate.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the revaluation of the 4th respondent's answer script, the misuse of directions from a previous court judgment, and the University's attempt to overreach the court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right of a candidate for revaluation of answer scripts will be governed by the regulations framed by the University and in the absence of enabling regulations, revaluation cannot be sought. The court also emphasized that the directions from a previous court judgment should be followed in a bona fide manner and not misused.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, quashing the steps taken by the University to revalue the answer sheet of the 4th respondent and directing provisionally a rank certificate to be issued to the petitioner, subject to verification by the University as directed in the previous judgment.
Antony Dominic, J.
1. Petitioner was a M. Ed student under the Kerala University. In the examination held in February, 2007, she appeared and was issued Ext.P1 mark list. For the written examination of IIIrd paper, Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education, she was secured 47 marks. Ext.R1(a) proceedings of the Controller of Examinations shows that, with the marks she secured, the petitioner was eligible to be awarded 3rd rank. However, rank certificate was not issued despite the representations made.
2. While matters stood thus, newspapers of Ist May, 2009, carried a news stating that the 4th respondent, who had initially secured 22 marks and failed in the paper III, succeeded in getting her answer paper revalued five times and was finally awarded 47 marks and thus managed to secure second rank in the final examination. It was also reported that the 4th respondent is a leader of Students Federation of India and was the Vice Chairperson of the University Union. The suggestion was that it was on account of her political influence she could manage to get her answer paper revalued even in the absence of any regulation providing for the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the new report. Petitioner submits that, on coming to know of these developments, she made enquiries and came to know that the University had revalued the answer paper of the 4th respondent, allegedly in implementation of the judgment of this court in WP (c).No.18680/07, a copy of which is Ext.P3.
3. According to the petitioner, when results were declared, coming to know that she had secured only 22 marks and failed paper III, complaining about the valuation and making allegations against the valuers, the 4th respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of Ext.P3 judgment of by this court directing the Vice Chancellor to examine the grievances she had raised in the complaint. It is stated that in pursuance to the said direction, the Vice Chancellor called for the remarks of the Chairman of the Board of Studies regarding the competence of examiner and the method adopted for valuation of paper III. It is stated that the Chairman reported that there was no irregularity in the evaluation process. It is stated that, ignoring the said report, the politically constituted Syndicate of the University ordered revaluation of paper III of the 4th respondent by somebody from outside the State. Thus according to the petitioner, misusing the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, the answer paper was revalued, inflated marks were given and rank was assigned to the 4th respondent.
4. Petitioner again filed Ext.P4 representation to the Vice Chancellor complaining of the delay on the part of the University in issuing the rank certificate but however no action was taken. It was in these circumstances the writ petition was filed praying to quash the proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 to revalue the answer script of the 4th respondent in paper III -M.Ed 2006-07 of the 4th respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue rank certificate to the petitioner for the Academic year 2006-07.
5. In the counter affidavit filed, the University is admitting that originally 3rd rank was awarded to the petitioner. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment, the matter was considered by the Vice Chancellor, and that a report was obtained from the Chairman of Board of Studies. It is stated that the report thus obtained from the Chairman of the Board of Studies was incomplete and therefore the Vice Chancellor ordered that the answer script of the 4th respondent be submitted for revaluation by a competent examiner outside the State,to determine whether the candidate was eligible for pass in the same subject. It is stated that accordingly the answer script was sent to a Professor and Head of Department of Education of a University outside the State to determine whether the candidate was eligible for pass in the examination. That Professor is one who is allegedly inc
