Alex Saji v. University of Kerala — 1996 DIGILAW 325 (KER)

Judgment :- Rajan, J. These original petitions involve a common question regarding the revaluation of the answer books of the petitioners and the validity of the guidelines adopted by the University of Kerala to the effect that the benefit of revaluation will not be available if the candidate secured less than 5% of the maximum marks of the paper as a result of the revaluation. The petitioner in O.P.No. 14206/93 secured 14 out of 60 and 48 out of 90 in the Mathematics Papers I and II respectively. The petitioner wanted to join the professional course for which an entrance examination is conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The petitioner who belongs to Other Backward Community must obtain a minimum of 45% of the 150 marks for Mathematics Papers I and II, in order to secure admission to the Engineering course in case he passes the entrance examination. Therefore, he applied for revaluation of his Mathematics papers. As a result of a revaluation, he obtained 18 and 50 marks in Mathematics I and II papers respectively. According to the University, there is only 5% and 2% increase in the marks after revaluation. Therefore, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revalued marks in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the University. In O.P. No. 10738/94, it is the same Mathematics paper, which stood in the way of the petitioner getting admission to the professional course. In the mathematics second paper, the petitioner originally obtained 18 marks. In the first revaluation, he got 20 marks and in the second revaluation he got 17 marks. Therefore, the average of the two revaluations is 19. applying the same guidelines, the petitioner was not given the benefit of the revaluation. In this connection, it is interesting to note mat the two petitioners could not satisfy the eligibility for admission to professional course by 0.5 and 1 mark respectively. 2. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University reveals the following facts. Clause 25 of Chapter VII of the Kerala University First Ordinances 1970 empowers the Syndicate to frame such guidelines for the efficient conduct of the examinations and to keep up the integrity of the examinations. The present guideline for revaluation was issued on 3.7.1991. 2. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University reveals the following facts. Clause 25 of Chapter VII of the Kerala University First Ordinances 1970 empowers the Syndicate to frame such guidelines for the efficient conduct of the examinations and to keep up the integrity of the examinations. The present guideline for revaluation was issued on 3.7.1991. According to the provisions in the guidelines each answer paper is got revalued independently by two examiners of the subject and the result is finalised taking into account the average marks obtained in the two revaluations, subject to the norms relating to the percentage of the increase in marks for effecting change in the original marks. Clause 9 of the guidelines reads as follows: "9. Answer books will be revalued by two examiners and the revaluation results will then be finalised as follows: a. The original marks secured by the candidate will not be changed in the following cases i. If the valued average marks are less than the marks secured in the original valuation. ii. If the revalued average marks exceeds the marks secured by the candidate in the original valuation by less the 5% of the maximum marks of the paper. b. If the revalued average marks exceeds the marks secured by the candidate in the original valuation by 5% or more of the maximum marks of the paper, the revalued average marks will be taken as the final marks and the marks secured by the candidate in the original valuation will be changed accordingly". 3. In answer to the contentions raised by the petitioner in O.P.No.14206/93 it was stated in the counter affidavit as follows: "In the present case, one of the examiners who has revalued the answer book in Mathematics Paper II of the petitioner has given only 45 marks as against the original mark of 48.54 Marks was given by the other revaluer. However, average of the marks secured on two revaluations is 49.5 (rounded to 50) and the percentage of increase is below 5% of the maximum marks of 90. The petitioner is thus not entitled to the benefit of any change in the original marks for Mathematics Paper IT." 4. In the case of the petitioner in O.P. No. 10738 of 1994, the average of the two revaluations was 19 marks. The petitioner is thus not entitled to the benefit of any change in the original marks for Mathematics Paper IT." 4. In the case of the petitioner in O.P. No. 10738 of 1994, the average of the two revaluations was 19 marks. Therefore, only one mark was increased which fell short of 5% limit prescribed by the University. 5. It is the above guidelines, which have been challenged as arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable by the counsel for the petitioners. Sri. E. Subramani who appeared for the petitioner in O.P. No. 14206793 argued that the prescription of minimum 5% increase in the result of revaluation has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the prescription of the guideline. According to the counsel for the petitioners, it is no fault of the petitioners that their answer papers of Mathematics were not properly valued at the first instance by the examiners. Admittedly, there was increase in the marks obtained by the petitioners in both the papers of Mathematics. Therefore, their apprehension that there was mistake in the original valuation was found to be correct. Therefore, there was no reasonable basis for not granting the benefits of revaluation to the petitioners. The injustice is more glaring in these cases. The marks they need for getting admission to the professional course is only 0.5 and 1 respectively. The prescription of a 5% increase in mark for granting the benefit of revaluation has adversely and prejudicially affected the petitioners. It was further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the University cannot take advantage of its own mistake and cannot rely on a rule which acts to the prejudice of the petitioners in order to deprive them of the benefits of revaluation. 6. Smt. Seemanthini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. No. 10738/94 forcefully put forward the submission that the University has recognised the right of a student to get his answer papers revalued. Thus, once the above right is recognised and conceded by the University, the University is bound to give the benefit of revaluation result to a student. Any restriction imposed in awarding the actual revalued marks to a student will defeat the very purpose of revaluation. The guidelines really nullify the effect of revaluation. Therefore, it was argued that the guideline is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. 7. Sri. Any restriction imposed in awarding the actual revalued marks to a student will defeat the very purpose of revaluation. The guidelines really nullify the effect of revaluation. Therefore, it was argued that the guideline is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. 7. Sri. S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned standing counsel for the University argued that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these original petitions because they have no fundamental right to get their answer papers revalued. It was also submitted by him that the guidelines prescribed by the University are perfectly valid and cannot be assailed on the ground of either discrimination or arbitrariness. The above argument was mainly based on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Maharashtra S. B. O. S.& H$ Education v. Paritosh (AIR 1984 SC 1543). In the above case, the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the disappointed candidates who had appeared for the examinations have under law a right to demand revaluation of answer books. In dealing with the above question, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Further, it is in the public interest that the results of Public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process". The Supreme Court further held that the courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. 8. Learned counsel also cited another ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Sunder Singh (AIR 1984 SC 919). 8. Learned counsel also cited another ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Sunder Singh (AIR 1984 SC 919). In the above ruling, the Supreme Court was considering the awarding of grace marks upto one percent of the total marks. The Supreme Court disapproved the action of the Punjab University in awarding grade marks in respect of postgraduate degrees because a highest qualification should be conferred only on the deserving students who have studied the subject and taken the appropriate examination and the degree must be awarded on the basis of their performance. Therefore, there should be no scope for awarding grace marks at such higher level. According to the learned counsel for the University, the above ruling was followed by the Bombay High Court in the ruling reported in Bharat v. Vice Chancellor, University of Bombay (MR 1989 Bombay 321). The Madras High Court has also taken the view in the ruling reported in B. Rajappa v, Addl. Controller of Examination, Madras University (AIR 1989 Madras 242) that a candidate sitting for examinations conducted by the University has no fundamental right to insist for revaluation of his papers. It was further observed in the above ruling that once the rules got formulated it is not possible to travel beyond the rules. In the above ruling the candidates wanted a comparison with the answer papers of other successful candidates, a process not contemplated in the rules pertaining to revaluation. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that thee above rulings relied on b the learned standing counsel for the University are clearly distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. According to them, the Maharashtra SBOS & HS Education case (AIR 1984 SC 1543) mainly discussed and decided whether there was any right for the students to demand are valuation of their answer papers. Similarly, in the Punjab University case (AIR 1984 SC 919) the question was whether the awarding of grace marks to post graduate students was correct or not. In B. Rajappa's case (AIR 1989 Madras 242), the question was whether the rules for revaluation contemplate comparison with the answer papers of successful candidates. I see considerable force in the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In B. Rajappa's case (AIR 1989 Madras 242), the question was whether the rules for revaluation contemplate comparison with the answer papers of successful candidates. I see considerable force in the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the present case, the question is whether the benefit of the marks obtained as a result of revaluation can be legitimately denied taking shelter under the guideline that the original marks secured by the candidate will not be changed unless the revalued average marks exceeds the original marks by less than 5 % of the maximum marks. The answer to the argument based on discrimination, unreasonableness and arbitrariness is contained in the counter affidavit in the following lines: "The rules in vogue prior to 1984 was mat a candidate would get the benefit of revaluation only if the revalued marks exceeds the marks originally secured by the candidate by all east 10% of the maximum marks of the paper. The difference in marks for getting the benefit of revaluation was later reduced to 5% by amending the guidelines. In the year 1991, a five member committee was constituted by the Syndicate to make recommendation regarding the revision of the guidelines relating to revaluation. The above sub-committee at its meeting held on 10.4.1991 had also observed among the other filings that a variation of 5% in awarding marks could normally occur in two independent valuations of the same paper and hence it would be appropriate to fix the 5 % limit for affecting a change in marks scored on revaluation. It is on the basis of the recommendation of this committee that the Syndicate decided to adopt the present guidelines for conducting revaluation with effect from April 1991 examinations onwards. These guidelines are now strictly followed and the University has not shown any discrimination towards the petitioners. The revaluation results of thousands of students in previous years were finalised based on the above provision and it may not be possible to reopen all such cases". 11. Therefore, we have to see whether the above prescription of 5% difference is legally sustainable or not. The object of revaluation is for the purpose of finding out whether there was any mistake in the original valuation. 11. Therefore, we have to see whether the above prescription of 5% difference is legally sustainable or not. The object of revaluation is for the purpose of finding out whether there was any mistake in the original valuation. Now, it has come to the notice of this Court in several cases and is also known to the public that the examination system followed by the Universities is not above board. In the background of these complaints regarding examination, it is only natural that a disappointed candidate will seek a revaluation of his papers. On such revaluation if it is found that the candidate secured higher marks than the original marks, it is only proper that the candidate must be given the above marks. To deny the benefit of the higher marks he obtained in the revaluation will really frustrate the whole object of the revaluation. Therefore, it is clear that the above guidelines have no nexus or proximity to the objects sought to be achieved by framing the guidelines. 12. Another point put forward by the learned standing counsel representing the University is that the candidate has been given the benefit of clause 9(a)(i) of the guidelines that if the valued average marks are less than the marks secured in the original valuation, then the original marks secured by the candidate will not be changed. On the above basis, it was argued that the candidates cannot attack the legality of clause 9(a)(ii) which prescribes the 5% limit. But according to me that does not improve the case of the University. Merely because the original marks are maintained in the case of the candidate obtaining less marks as a result of the revaluation, it does not make the other condition valid or reasonable. 13. Under these circumstances, I have to declare that clause 9(a)(ii) of the guidelines prescribed by the University is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The original petitions are allowed and respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 14206/93 and respondent No.1 in O.P. No. 10738/94 are directed to grant the benefit of the marks obtained by the petitioners after revaluation and to issue the mark list showing the marks obtained after revaluation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make no order as to costs.