Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6493
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
PAUL J. OVELIL – Appellant
Versus
A.P.J ABDULKALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) 42511/2024
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, SRI.P.A.REJIMON, SMT.NIKITA NAIR C.S., SRI.SAJEEV JOHN T., SRI.VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA, SMT.MAHIMA MERINE REJI, SRI.K.R.GANESH, SC, SRI.JOMY GEORGE, SRI.R.PADMARAJ(K/191/1989), SRI.M.J.BENNY(K/1145/2003), SRI.SAJEEVAN V.T.(K/202/1989), SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR [V.K.EDOM](K/000629/2016), SRI.ARJUN S. PRAKASH(K/002436/2023), SRI.ANAND SASIDHARAN(K/2404/2024)
The court mandated a proper review of academic evaluations, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to faculty recommendations.
Headnote:(A) Education Laws - Review and Revaluation Procedures - The petitioner, having failed in Advanced Control Theory, contested the review process after receiving inconsistent marks across evaluations. The court found non-application of mind by the review examiner and directed a proper review considering faculty recommendations. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
(B) Administrative Procedures - The court emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to established grading policies in academic evaluations. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner failed in a subject, underwent revaluation, and contested the review process due to discrepancies in awarded marks and lack of explanation for the faculty's recommendation not being considered.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the review examiner did not apply due diligence in marking and ordered a new review based on faculty recommendations.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the review process and the inconsistency in marks awarded across evaluations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the review process must be conducted with due diligence and transparency, ensuring that faculty recommendations are duly considered in academic evaluations.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for a proper review.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner completed B.Tech Degree Course in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (2015 scheme). The petitioner passed in all the papers except one namely Advanced Control Theory (EE 304) in the regular examination. The petitioner later appeared in the supplementary examination in May, 2022. The petitioner was declared as failed as he had scored only 35 marks.
2. The petitioner thereafter submitted application for revaluation. On revaluation, the petitioner was awarded 38 marks which was still short by two marks for a pass. Therefore, the petitioner submitted application for review paying the prescribed fee of ₹5,000/- and paying ₹1,000/- towards obtaining answer sheets. As required under the review application, a faculty member of the petitioner's Institution recommended that the petitioner should get 47 marks. However, after review, the petitioner was declared failed. On enquiry, the petitioner found that the review examiner gave only 31.5 marks. However, in the tabulation sheet, the petitioner was given 35 marks. The petitioner states that he is entitled to get the marks awarded in the review and the reason for not considering the marks given by the faculty member in the recommendation was not explained. The tabulation sheet produced by the petitioner at Ext.P15 would indicate that there is total non-application of mind by the review examiner, contended the petitioner.
3. Respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that the review of the answer book was conducted by a senior faculty member (Dr.Jisha C.R., Professor, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram) having more than 20 years of experience. Further, the University has received only the RTI application requesting for the review marks. Documents requested by the student were also provided on 27.11.2024.
4. As per the U.O. No. 2522/2024/KTU dated 12.09.2024, students having at least 40% marks in End Semester Exam, but failed to score minimum marks required to pass the Course are eligible for the L.P. Grade. In this case, student got only 38 marks (required 40 marks). Hence, the student is not eligible for L.P. Grade.
5. The student requested for review of the Answer Books on 19.10.2022 and the result after the review was communicated on 10.02.2023. The L.P. Grade was implemented later on 12.09.2024, as per U.O.No. 2522/2024/KTU. Therefore, the statement that the University failed to consider the U.O. implementing the L.P. Grade is incorrect and the statements made thereafter are also not correct. Regarding the valuation process, it is important to note that the marks awarded during valuation, revaluation (38 marks), and review (35 marks) were closely aligned. All three evaluations were conducted independently by faculty members from three different Valuation Camps, contended the respondents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent.
7. The petitioner, in the supplementary examination for the paper Advanced Control Theory, scored only 35 marks. In the revaluation conducted, the petitioner was declared as obtained 38 marks. The petitioner submitted application for review. In the application for review, a faculty of the petitioner's Institution valued the marks of the petitioner and opined that the petitioner is entitled to get 47 marks. A perusal of Ext.P12 would indicate that the faculty member has given sufficient reason to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get 47 marks. Answers to question Nos.6, 7, 12(a) and 17 required higher marks for reasons advanced by the faculty as can be seen from Ext.P12. However, the review examiner awarded the petitioner only 35 marks.
8. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(b) tabulation sheet. The tabulation sheet would indicate that the aggregate of the marks granted by the review examiner would come only to 31.5 marks. However, the to
