A second revaluation is not permitted under university statutes; courts refrain from intervening in academic evaluations unless there is clear arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction to revaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner for the subject Mechanical Solid of the B.Tech course second semester for the academic period from 2020 to 2024 conducted by the 1^st respondent University. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to grant full marks to question Nos.9 and 16 in respect of the said subject examination.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the University.

3. Petitioner had attended the examination for the subject Mechanical Solids in the second semester for B.Tech course. Marks awarded for two of the questions he attempted in the said examination are the subject of dispute in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner for question No.9 he was awarded one mark, and for question No.16 he was awarded only 4 marks, while those questions carried a total of 3 and 10 marks respectively. After the examination when results were published, petitioner applied for revaluation, and on a recalculation of the marks awarded, it was found that he was liable to be benefited by 10 marks, since there was an error in adding the marks. As far as the revaluation was concerned, there were no changes to the marks already awarded. It is at this juncture, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The circumstances arising in the instant case will reveal that the petitioner is now attempting to have a second revaluation of his answer sheets in relation to two of the questions. The concept of second revaluation is alien as per the University statute and regulations. Since in academic matters this Court should refrain from passing any orders unless there is an ex facie arbitrariness or visible malafides, I am of the view that in the absence of any such allegation even, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted.

5. Apart from the above, the learned counsel took the Court through the answers given for question No.16 and the final conclusion arrived at therein. The learned counsel contented that since the answer arrived at by the petitioner was correct, he should have been given the full marks of 10 instead of the already awarded 4. I am afraid I cannot agree with the said contention.

6. A 10 mark question may require the candidate not only to write the conclusion as correct, but also the manner in which he arrived at his conclusion. An evaluator appreciates the mode in which the candidate had arrived at the conclusion and then decide on the marks to be awarded. It is not for this Court to consider the correctness or otherwise of such awarding of marks and review the same. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

sd/-