The court outlined the legal standards for examination revaluation, emphasizing proper adherence to regulations governing mark allocation for educational assessments.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus to R1 to accord One mark totaling to 32 Marks in Theory Paper (Property Law—Code 4010) and to issue marks card to that effect.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent to challenge the re-evaluated theory Paper Family Law-II—Code 4011 as per ‘Annexure-E’ and ‘Annexure-G’ in time bound manner as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court and to announce the results afresh well before the conduct of the supplementary Theory Examinations scheduled to commence from 29.03.2023 vide Annexure-L

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus to R1 to disclose the information as sought vide ‘Annexure-G’ with scheme of evaluation.

iv. To Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be a law student of Al-Ameen College of Law at Bengaluru having completed II Semester of Three Years LLB course. Having taken up the exams in October-November 2022, in the said examination, in respect of Property Law, the petitioner has secured 24 marks and 24 marks in Family Law. The petitioner applied for revaluation on 01.11.2022 and on revaluation, the petitioner was awarded 31 marks in Property Law and 24 marks in Family Law. The petitioner contending that revaluation has not been made properly submitted a requisition application on 20.01.2023, the same not having been considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of Property Law, the petitioner initially having secured 24 marks was later on awarded 31 marks by the valuator. This was on account of an obvious mistake committed in the earlier valuation inasmuch as it is noted that the petitioner has not attempted Question No.1-B when the petitioner had infact attempted the same. In the revaluation marks have been allotted to the said answer given by the petitioner and now total marks allotted is 31. Thus, he contends that it is 32 marks which ought to be allotted and not 31 marks as notified by the University and on these grounds, he submits that there is a mistake committed by the University.

4. Insofar as Family Law is concerned, he submits that in the valuation done at the first instance, the valuator has wrongly considered that the petitioner has not answered question No.1-B and question No.4-B which has been corrected in the revaluation and the petitioner has been awarded 24 marks compared to 20 marks earlier. In that background he submits that the methodology of the valuation which has been conducted by the same valuer is improper. The valuer has not taken into consideration even the answers which have been written by the petitioner. The valuer has made a note that the petitioner has not even attempted these questions. On that basis, he submits that the answer scripts of the petitioner has to be once again revalued.

5. Smt.Sarita Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent – University would submit that insofar as the improper valuation carried out by the valuer, the valuer has issued an apology letter contending that the mistake has occurred on account of the petitioner not using the next page for the next answer but continuing the answer in the same page where the earlier answer ended. It is contrary to the instructions which had been issued along with the examination booklet. It is on that basis that the valuer presumed that the answer was in continuation of the earlier question and not answer to the next question. She submits that show cause notice has been issued to the said valuer and necessary a