- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE R BETWEEN: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.52822/2015 (EDN-RES) MARIA LORAINE LYDIA D/O DAVID B AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS I MBBS, FATHER MULLER S MEDICAL COLLEGE KANKANADY, MANGALURU-575 002...PETITIONER (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4 TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTAR 2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4 TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO AWARD ADDITIONAL MARKS TO THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR QUESTION NO.9 OF BIO CHEMISTRY THEORY PAPER-II AS PER THE ANSWER SCRIPT AT ANNX-D IN THE I MBBS EXAMINATION IN THE SUBJECT OF BIO CHEMISTRY THEORY PAPER-II CONDUCTED BY THE R-1 UNIVERSITY IN JUNE/JULY 2015 AND DIRECT THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO REFER THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT OF BIO CHEMISTRY THEORY
- 2 - PAPER-II IN THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED IN JUNE/JULY 2015 TO A THIRD EXAMINER AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Whether revaluation of an answer script could be ordered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? This is the question that requires determination in this writ petition. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner, in substance, has sought for revaluation of her answer script in Theory paper 2 of Biochemistry of first year M.B.B.S. examination of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. 3. I have heard Sri Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the procedure, the answer script was
- 3 - valued by two valuers and first valuer has given 2.5 and the second valuer has given zero for question No.9. He submitted that the petitioner got the aforesaid answer script valued by Professor and Head of Department of Bio Chemistry, Bangalore Medical College and he has awarded 2.5 marks. He further submitted that the total marks awarded is less by one mark. In effect, the argument of the petitioner is that the University has awarded 31 marks whereas it ought to have been 32. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has got power to direct revaluation of an answer script. In support of his submission, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Sahiti vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences [(2009)1 SCC 599] and in President, Board of Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007)1 SCC 603]. He referred to the following observations made in Sahiti: 32. The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the Judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re- evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is
- 4 - arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority. 38. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters. He also referred to the following observations made in President, Board of Secondary Education: 6. Award of marks by an Examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute, the Examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is a stepping stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for re-evaluation cannot be a shield for the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which re-evaluation is impermissible. 6. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that unless the valuation is clearly arbitrary, it is not permissible to direct revaluation of an answer script. In support of his submission, he relied on the following decisions: (i) Pranshu Indurkhya vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2005 Madhya Pradesh 152)
- 5 - (ii) C.Jagadiswaran vs. Vice-Chancellor, rendered by Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 1 April 2014 [W.P. (MD) No.172 of 2014] (iii) Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board [(2012)1 SCC 157] 7. I have examined the matter in the light of the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties. When revaluation may be ordered is explained by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pranshu Indurkhya vs. State of M.P. [AIR 2005 Madhya Pradesh 152]. It is useful to extract the following principles laid down therein relating to revaluation: 7. The principles in regard to revaluation may therefore be summarised thus: (a) A student has no right to seek revaluation of an answerscript unless the rules governing the examination specifically provide for revaluation. A provision for 'scrutiny' or 'retotalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not entitle a student to seek re-valuation. (b) Where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (c) Ascertainment of mala fides and tampering depends on facts of the case and for that purpose, if necessary, the answer script may be summoned. (d) Ascertainment of "gross negligence resulting in injustice" is a more difficult exercise. A student who has
- 6 - consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years examinations, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may consider it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer scripts. (The mere fact that a student feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be a ground to call for answer scripts). On securing the answer-script, the Court may examine it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice which shocks its judicial conscience, it may direct re-valuation. (e) But change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for revaluation. Different examiners may evaluate the same answers differently resulting in lesser or higher marks being awarded. Re-valuation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different. In traditional examinations where the purpose is to test the knowledge, grammar, logic or reasoning, the perceptions about the answers may vary from examiner to examiner. (Of course where the examination is of objective type, where the student is merely to mark 'yes' or 'no', or choose one of the multiple answers, there cannot be any difference in valuation). (f) While fairness in examinations is impliedly assured by the Board, exactness in valuation in individual cases can neither be assured nor be claimed. Certain margin of human error, over-sight, and perceptional difference is part of the valuation system, where thousands or lacs of answer scripts are evaluated by hundreds or thousands of evaluators. Therefore, even where the Court secures the answer script and examines it or gets it examined by an independent teacher, re-valuation should not be ordered merely because there is some difference in valuation or because one or two answers have not been valued or have been wrongly valued. To repeat, mala fides, tampering or gross negligence (and not small or negligible errors or perceptional changes) is a condition precedent for ordering re-valuation. I am in respectful agreement with the principles extracted above.
- 7-8. In my opinion, even where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering or gross negligence in valuation is made out. However, revaluation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different. 9. As stated above, the grievance of the petitioner is that she should have been awarded one mark more. This is no ground for revaluation of the answer script. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. KSR Petition dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE