Back
1988 Supreme(All) 103
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.P. SINGH, J.
Chitra Kala Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, Agra University, Rajya Bhavan, Lucknow – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20571 of 1987
Decided on : Feb 25, 1988
Satya Prakash, R.G.Padia, R.P.Singh
The powers of the Vice-Chancellor and the Examinations Committee to order revaluation of answer books and reduce marks, and the applicability of the principles of natural justice in such cases.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY - Examination - Revaluation of Answer Books - Powers of Vice-Chancellor and Examinations Committee - Natural Justice - Interference by Court.
Fact of the Case:
Complaints were received by the Vice-Chancellor of Agra University alleging manipulation of marks in the LL.B. (First year) Examination of 1986. The Vice-Chancellor ordered revaluation of answer books of candidates who had secured more than 65% marks. The Examinations Committee later decided to revalue answer books of all candidates who had secured more than 60% marks. The petitioner, whose marks were reduced after revaluation, challenged the orders of the Vice-Chancellor and the Examinations Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to order revaluation of answer books under section 13 (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, as it was a matter of urgent nature requiring immediate action. The Examinations Committee also had the power to reduce the marks under section 29 of the Act. The Court further held that the petitioner had no right to be heard in the process of revaluation or evaluation of answer books and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court also declined to interfere with the decision of the academic bodies, as it was a matter of academic judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to order revaluation of answer books under section 13 (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973? 2. Whether the Examinations Committee had the power to reduce the marks under section 29 of the Act? 3. Whether the petitioner had a right to be heard in the process of revaluation or evaluation of answer books? 4. Whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to order revaluation of answer books under section 13 (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, as it was a matter of urgent nature requiring immediate action. The Court interpreted the provision liberally to give full effect to the intention of the Act, which was to eradicate corruption in the evaluation of answer books. 2. The Court held that the Examinations Committee had the power to reduce the marks under section 29 of the Act. The Court interpreted the provision broadly to include the power to supervise the entire examination process, including moderation and tabulation. 3. The Court held that the petitioner had no right to be heard in the process of revaluation or evaluation of answer books. The Court reasoned that the academic bodies were responsible for maintaining standards and conducting examinations, and that the essence of examinations was that the worth of every person was appraised without any assistance from an outside source. 4. The Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had no right to participate in the process of revaluation or in the final awarding of marks, and that this was not a case of use of unfair means.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Examinations Committee, and the Chancellor were valid and did not suffer from any illegality.
M. P. Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Chancellor on 29-8-87 rejecting the representation dated 11-12-1986 filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Examinations Committee dated 23-11-1986 whereby it was decided to reduce the marks of the petitioner in LL.B. (First year).
2. The petitioner appeared in the LL.B. (First year) Examination of 1986 from Agra College, Agra (hereinafer referred to as the College) with roll number as 2280. She appeared in six papers, viz., Law of Contract, Law of Torts and Essement, Law of Agreement and Procedure, Hindu Law, Mohammadan Law, Indian Constitutional Law and Indian Legal History.
After the examination, the answer books were sent to the relevant examiners, who after evaluating the same submitted the mark sheets The tabulation work was also completed but before the result could be finalised and declared, the Vice-Chancellor received a number of complaints that certain influential persons connected with the University had approached the examiners for LL.B. (First year) Examination of 1986 and as a result of which have succeeded in getting the marks of their respective wards increased, which actually they did not deserve. One of the complaint was made by a senior Professor of the University. The complaints included the roll number of the petitioner along with many others.
3. After receiving the complaints the Vice-Chancellor got it verified and found that there was prima facie some truth in it. He further found on enquiry that the normal rule of sending the answer books have also been violated in as much as normally half of the answer books were always sent to the external examiners and other half was retained for the internal examiners but this rule was violated for LL.B. (First year) Examinations of 1986 particularly in regard to those candidates whose roll numbers were mentioned in the complaints. The complaints did not appear to be baseless.
4. The Vice-Chancellor, on further enquiry, found that the roll numbers mentioned in the complaint, were of the relatives of teachers and other influential persons who mattered in the University. Most of them secured very high percentage of marks. He after enquiry was satisfied that it was not a mere coincidence or chance but a clear manipulation right from the initial stages when roll numbers were assigned to the candidates.
As the matter was extremely urgent, the Vice-Chancellor exercising his powers under section 13 (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) took immediate action and ordered that the answer books of all those candidates who had secured more than 65% marks be reevaluated by two out-side examiners. The answer books were accordingly sent for revaluation. The results obtained were placed before the Examinations Committee. Among all the candidates whose answer books were revalued, the difference in the case of the petitioner was highest. It was a difference of 132 marks. Initially she was given 499 marks but after revaluation she got only 367 marks.
5. On considering this matter the Examinations Committee exercising its power under section 29 of the Act took a decision that the result of all the candidates who had secured more than 60% marks be revalued. Again the answer books of all those candidates who had secured more than 60% marks were sent for revaluation to the external examiners.
6. The Examinations Committee in its meeting dated 23-11-1986 decided that the results of those candidates whose answer books were revalued be declared on the basis of marks obtained by them after re-examination. It was also decided that no change will be made where the difference between the original marks and the marks obtained after re-examination was only 10% or less in each paper. Re-examined marks will be such as are arrived at after taking the average of two examiners in each paper. The results of all the candidates were thereafter declared in acco
