R. Rajesh v. University of Madras and Another — 1992 DIGILAW 422 (MAD)

Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner, who is a student of Madras University, has filed the above writ petition to call for the original answer paper of the petitioner bearing Register No. 9204577 for the subject 'Paper VI Mechanics' B.Sc., Third Year Examination held in April, 1992 and quash the statement of marks furnished to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and to award to the petitioner the actual and true marks in the said original answer paper. 2. The petitioner joined the B. Sc., Mathematics Course in A. M. Jain College, affiliated to the University of Madras. In the third/final year, there were five subjects/papers, all relating to the main subject Mathematics. According to the petitioner, he did extremely well in all the five subjects and expected to get 100% in each of the five papers/subjects. However, when the result came on 1-7-1992, he was shocked that he had failed in the B. Sc. final year. Out of the five subjects, he was awarded 100% in three subjects and 73% in the fourth subject but only 28% in Paper VI Mechanics. He could not believe that he secured only 28% in the said paper. He, therefore, immediately approached the Principal of his college, who was good enough to address a letter to the 2nd respondent on 2-7-1992 for a review of the marks obtained in the same subject by the petitioner and two other students. The 2nd respondent by a communication dated 14-7-1992 addressed to the Principal of A. M. Jain College, gave the result of the review and informed that out of the three students who had failed in that subject and who had applied for review of that paper, two students were declared as passed but the petitioner's marks were confirmed to be the same 28% as shown in the original results. The petitioner sincerely and truly believed that there is either a human error or a computer error showing 28% marks for the said subject in the computerised statement of marks sent to his college and given to him. According to the petitioner, there are lot of irregularities in the valuation of answer papers and awarding of marks, preparation of computerised mark lists, etc. 3. It is pertinent to reproduce the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit regarding the valuation. A few passages are reproduced. According to the petitioner, there are lot of irregularities in the valuation of answer papers and awarding of marks, preparation of computerised mark lists, etc. 3. It is pertinent to reproduce the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit regarding the valuation. A few passages are reproduced. "I understand that the extra sheets from the answer papers of brilliant students are clandestinely removed and traced (copied) for and at the instance of the weak students for valuable consideration. Sometimes, the extra sheets from the answer books so removed are not being re-stitched to the original main answer book with the result those students are made to suffer. I honestly believe that some such thing might have happened in respect of my answer paper for the 'Paper VI Mechanics' which I wrote exceedingly well, that expected 100% marks but actually received only 28% as per the mark list given by the 2nd respondent. I understand that even if review is applied for, the authorities do not honestly and sincerely correct their mistakes unless influence is used by the review petitioners. I understand that two other students who also applied for review of the marks for the same subject through my Principal might have used influence and therefore on review they have shown to have passed............. I sincerely believe that if there was no human mistake or computer mistake in respect of my answer paper and if the authorities would have given me the true marks I would have certainly obtained near about 100%. A perusal of my 'Answer Paper-VI Mechanics' will undoubtedly bear testimony of my performance. I sincerely and honestly believe that something is basically wrong in respect of the marks shown to have been secured by me in the computerised mark list issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of the said subject 'Paper VI Mechanics'. ...............I submit that if my original answer papers are produced before this Hon'ble Court, the falsity of 28% marks awarded to me can be seen by this Hon'ble Court. I submit that it is unfair on the part of the 2nd respondent to have shown 28% for me for the said subject when I have and I would have definitely scored near about 100%. It is pertinent to state that I have never failed in any of the examination throughout my academic career. In all the examinations I have passed with distinction. It is pertinent to state that I have never failed in any of the examination throughout my academic career. In all the examinations I have passed with distinction. I submit that great injustice has been done to me by the 2nd respondent ................ I submit that only this Hon'ble Court can do justice by calling for my original answer papers and directing the University to award me the marks which are found on the original answer papers. I submit that unless the original answer papers are produced before this Hon'ble Court, justice cannot be done to me and there will be a definite failure of justice." 4. The petitioner has also filed W. M. P. Nos. 14819 and 14820 of 1992 for interim direction to the respondents to produce the original answer books of the petitioner and also to fix an early date for the hearing of the writ petition. My learned Brother S. Govindasamy, J., was pleased to admit the writ petition and ordered notice in W. M. P. No. 14819 of 1992 and dismissed W. M. P. No. 14820 of 1992 to fix an early date. After service of notice, Mr. P. Jothimani entered appearance and after hearing Mr. P. Jothimani and Mr. Surana, I passed an order on 25-8-1992. Paragraph 3 of that order, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herewith. "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I directed Mr. P. Jothimani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to produce the answer books relating to 'Paper VI Mechanics'. Accordingly, the paper has also been produced before this Court. The student was also present in Court. He has also seen the original answer book and states that it is his answer book. In my presence, the candidate perused the original book to find out whether it contained all the answers written by him and he found that the answer book was intact. I also directed the University of Madras and the University Counsel to suggest the name of a teacher to revalue the answer book in the presence of the Addl. Register of this Court. Accordingly, two names were suggested, one by the University and the other by the Advocate, who was present in Court. To revalue the paper, I appoint Mrs. N. Kalaiselvi, M. Bs., M. Phil. Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Quaid-Millot Govt. College, Annasalai, Madras-2. Register of this Court. Accordingly, two names were suggested, one by the University and the other by the Advocate, who was present in Court. To revalue the paper, I appoint Mrs. N. Kalaiselvi, M. Bs., M. Phil. Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Quaid-Millot Govt. College, Annasalai, Madras-2. The said teacher is directed to revalue the paper in the presence of the Addl. Registrar of this Court in his chamber. The question paper, key answers and the original answer book are handed over to the teacher to revalue the same and submit her report. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in cash to the teacher concerned for the services rendered by her." 5. I must also refer here that the learned counsel for the University has fairly accepted the appointment of Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Quaid-e-Millet Govt. College, Annasalai, Madras-2, as Examiner for revaluation. Since the matter was urgent, Mr. P. Jothimani, learned counsel for the University, was directed to argue the matter on instructions from the University. Accordingly, he argued the matter and denied each and every allegation of malpractice alleged by the petitioner and submits that the allegations are baseless and they are nothing but mischievous. 6. Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi was asked to revalue the answer book of the petitioner 'Paper VI - Mechanics' Since serious allegations have been made by the petitioner in his affidavit, I directed the petitioner to peruse the original answer book in my presence to find out whether the answer book was intact. The petitioner has also verified and found the same to be intact. The original answer book with the key answers and the question papers were handed over to the Examiner to revalue the same in the presence of Mr. S. Jayaraman, Addl. Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras, in his chambers. Accordingly, the Examiner revalued the answer book of the petitioner and submitted a report. 7. Mr. P. Jothimani, learned counsel for the University, submits that two more marks were added to the petitioner on review to make it as 30%. I also make it clear that the revaluation has been ordered by an independent person since serious allegations of malpractices have been made by the petitioner against the respondents. I also verified the answer book and found the same to be intact. Mrs. I also make it clear that the revaluation has been ordered by an independent person since serious allegations of malpractices have been made by the petitioner against the respondents. I also verified the answer book and found the same to be intact. Mrs. N. Kalaiselvi was requested to find out whether the answers given by the petitioner to the questions are correct and also to verify whether the marks awarded by the original Examiner who valued the paper originally is correct. The Examiner appointed by me had revalued the paper in question in the chamber of the Addl. Registrar of this Court and has opined that the maximum additional marks that can be given to the petitioner are five. The report of the Examiner is reproduced: "Report on the valuation of B. Sc. Mathematics Paper VI - Mechanics of the candidate number being 4581572. Question Number Marks that can be given Marks already given Difference 4(b) 5 3 2 5(d) 9 8 1 7(a) 9 8 1 7(b) 1 - 1 (for writing upto d2u U +U= ) d02 h2 In questions 9(a) and 9(b), the candidate has written velocities instead of velocity components. So, the whole idea of oblique impact of the spheres in question is lost. He has not defined the velocities u, v, w, w1 , u1, u1, etc. in his figures properly. But further calculations are correct. That is only the latter parts of the questions are correct. Without proper specification of the velocity components, correctness of the calculation part alone cannot carry any mark. So, extra marks that can be awarded is only 5 marks. (Sd.) N. Kalaichelvi, Lecturer (Senior Scale), Quaid-E-Millat Govt. College (W), Anna Salai, Madras-2." 8. It is submitted by the petitioner that 40 marks out of 100 have to be secured for passing in this particular paper. By taking into account the five marks awarded by the Examiner who revalued the paper in question, the petitioner is still short of five marks to secure a pass in the paper. I have also verified the answer book in the presence of Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Jothimani, learned counsel for the University and the petitioner himself in open Court. I do not find any discrepancy in the revaluation as alleged by Mr. Surana at the time of hearing. Mr. I have also verified the answer book in the presence of Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Jothimani, learned counsel for the University and the petitioner himself in open Court. I do not find any discrepancy in the revaluation as alleged by Mr. Surana at the time of hearing. Mr. Suarana submits that pressure was brought to bear upon the revaluer by the University. I must straightway reject the said contention as wholly baseless and totally unwarranted. I suggested to the learned counsel for the University to suggest a name of the teacher. Likewise, I asked one learned counsel, who was present in Court to suggest a name. The University has suggested the name of Mr. P. Ramachandran of Sir Thiagaraja College, Madras-102. Likewise, learned counsel upon I asked suggested the name of Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Quaid-E-Millat Govt. College for Women, Anna Salai, Madras-2. Nobody knew whom this Court was going to appoint on 25-8-1992. Exercising my judicial discretion, I selected Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi to revalue the paper and she also revalued the same in the presence of the Addl. Registrar (Admn.) of this Court in his chambers. Therefore, I accept the revaluation made by Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi as correct, and reject the assessment of Mr. Suraja as baseless. 9. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that this Court can alone do justice by calling for the original answer paper of the petitioner and that if the original answer book is produced, the falsity of 28 marks awarded to the petitioner can be seen by this Court. As a special case, and also to satisfy whether the petitioner's allegation is correct or not, I ordered revaluation by Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi by consent of both parties in Court. The petitioner on revaluation has secured only 35 marks, which is as under: Marks secured as per origina valuationl .. 28 Marks secured on review by the University .. 2 Marks secured in revaluation .. 5 Total .. 35 Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not secured the required pass mark of 40%. 10. A fervent plea was made by Mr. 28 Marks secured on review by the University .. 2 Marks secured in revaluation .. 5 Total .. 35 Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not secured the required pass mark of 40%. 10. A fervent plea was made by Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, for adding five more grace marks by the University by which the petitioner would get through the paper, for which the learned counsel for the University, on instructions, represents that the University cannot add five more grace marks. Excepting expressing my sympathies, it would not be proper or possible for this Court to direct the University to award five more marks to enable the petitioner to get through the paper. It is well settled that it is beyond the province of this Court to embark on the assessment and valuation of answers given by candidates and it is for the academicians, who are appointed as valuers, to assess the answer paper and award marks. 11. What prompted this Court to direct revaluation was the serious allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit. But, even after revaluation, the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum marks. Hence, there is no other alternative except to dismiss the writ petition. No case has been made out for declaring that the petitioner has passed in the paper in question. The allegations made by the petitioner are found to be false. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. This Court places on record the valuable services rendered by Mrs. N. Kalaichelvi, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, Quied-E-Millat Govt. College for Women, Anna Salai, Madras-2, by revaluing the paper. Petition dismissed.