Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Vishva Vaibhav – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 22240 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay.
For the Respondent: Gagan Mehta.
Point of law: If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it.
Headnote:
Dental College and Hospital – Admitted - Academic Year - Academic curriculum – Examination - re-evaluation -petitioner is a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course at the K.D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, an affiliate college of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra. The petitioner was admitted to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course during the Academic Year 2014-15. He asserts that he has performed very well in the academic curriculum
Finding of the court: This Court’s attention any regulation that may permit a second re-evaluation. That apart, re-evaluation once done, ought to bring the grievance to an end. No candidate can claim the right to a successive re-evaluation until some Examiner is persuaded to agree with the Examinee about the assessment of his own merit. This matter relates to assessment of a paper relating to a specialized branch of medicine. This Court has no means to ascertain nor the requisite expertise to determine if the petitioner is right or the Examiners are wrong. In a situation like this, the Examination Authority is to be trusted for their conclusions. It would be unwise for this Court to convert itself into an expert and set about the task of reopening an Examiner’s award twice done.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. The petitioner is a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course at the K.D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, an affiliate college of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra. The petitioner was admitted to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course during the Academic Year 2014-15. He asserts that he has performed very well in the academic curriculum. He has appeared in the final professional examination under Roll No. 178627762009 and Enrollment No. 13572. It is his case that he was declared ‘Failed’ in two papers, to wit, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper- 4) and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (Paper-7). The petitioner says that he wanted a re-evaluation of his marks obtained in each of these papers because ‘he believes that his answer scripts were not properly evaluated’ to borrow the words of the petitioner’s assertion in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition.
2. It is also pleaded by him that looking to his past academic record, he expected much higher marks than those that have been awarded. He has also asserted in paragraph no. 8 that he has secured copies of the scripts relating to the two papers in question and found the answers not to be correctly evaluated by the Examiners. He has pleaded in paragraph no. 12, the details of the errors, that are subject matter of action here. It is pointed out that the petitioner applied for an online re-evaluation of the two papers, paying the requisite fee. After re-evaluation, there was a result of ‘No Change’ in both the papers. The petitioner thereupon moved an application to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra, seeking redress against the improperly done re-evaluation. No action being taken by the Vice Chancellor or the Registrar of the University, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. He has prayed that a mandamus commanding the respondent University and the Vice Chancellor be issued to cause re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer book in the subject papers of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper-4) and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (Paper-7) of the B.D.S. Fourth Professional Examination, with a further direction that he be caused to be given correct marks after re-evaluation, within a period of time to be specified by this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Sriprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1.
4. Mr. Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of inaction on the University’s part, who are a statutory body. It is their duty to see that re-evaluation once undertaken, ought to be a bona fide exercise and not merely an eyewash. He urges that the original award as well as the result of re-evaluation, are both vitiated on account of grave irregularities committed by the two sets of Examiners. The petitioner has pleaded that he has correctly solved question no. 2(a) and 3(d) in the paper relating to Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (B) part 2 (Paper no. 7). The Examiners in both instances have not awarded correct marks. It is likewise argued that the question paper in the subject of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper No. 4) carries question no. 1, which has two parts and question no. 3, both of which have been correctly answered by the petitioner. He has also answered question no. 5 correctly. It is pleaded and argued that question nos. (I) (both parts), 3 and 5 have not led to any marks being awarded by the Examiners in error.
5. Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, submits that re-evaluation has been undertaken once and that has led to no change. This Court cannot convert itself into an expert to sit over the judgment of the Examiners, which is expressed in their award. He also submit
