Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 202 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh Pau v. Jai Narain Vyas University

2004-02-12

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 14.1.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned instructions contained in the Circular Annex.3 issued by the respondent-University providing reduction of marks pursuant to re-evaluation be declared illegal and set aside and consequently, awarding of the reduced marks to the petitioner in the mark sheet Annex.2 in the subject of Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.) be declared illegal and the original marks be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner passed Secondary with 67% marks and Senior Secondary with 62% marks from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan in the year 1995 and 1997 respectively. Thereafter, he got admission in B.E., M.B.M. College of the respondent Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. The further case of the petitioner is that in the Final B.E. Examination held in the year 2003, the petitioner was awarded 48 and 27 marks in Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.) and Irrigation & Water Resources Engineering in Written papers respectively, which is evident from the mark-sheet Annex.1.The further case of the petitioner is that as the marks awarded in the above two subjects were not commensurate to what he did, therefore, he sought re- evaluation in these two subjects, as per the instructions prevalent.The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said re-evaluation, while 10 marks have been reduced in Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.) meaning thereby the petitioner was awarded 38 marks in place of original 48 marks, but 17 marks have been increased in Irrigation & Water Resources Engineering meaning thereby 44 marks were awarded in place of 27. A copy of the mark-sheet after re-evaluation is marked as Annex.2.The further case of the petitioner is that since on re-evaluation, he has got 38 marks in place of 48 original marks in Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.), therefore, he was awarded reduced 38 marks in place of original 48 and declared failed and he was not awarded B.E. Degree. 3. 3. It may be stated here that as per the instructions contained in the University Circular (Annex.3), if on account of re-evluation, the marks of the candidate are reduced or decreased, that reduced or decreased marks would be taken as the marks obtained. 4. Aggrieved from the instructions contained in the University Circular Annex.3, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the main case of the petitioner is that in case of re-evaluation if marks are decreased or reduced, in such a situation, such reduced or decreased marks should not be taken as marks obtained and original marks should be considered and awarded and on re- evaluation, if reduced marks are awarded, the very purpose of re-evaluation would be frustrated and thus, the instructions contained in Annex.3 providing that if on re-evaluation marks are reduced, such reduced marks would be taken as the marks obtained, are wholly arbitrary, illegal, invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus, the same should be set aside. 5. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that when a candidate seeks re-evaluation, he must be ready to face its consequence either way and therefore, the terms and conditions contained in Annex.3 providing that if on account of re-evaluation, the marks of the candidate are decreased, then the decreased marks would be taken as the marks obtained, cannot be said to be arbitrary, invalid and illegal. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 7. The relevant provisions on re-evaluation as contained in Annex.3 are quoted here:- "(i) If the award of the re-evaluator is more than the award of the Main Examiner subject to limit of 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper. The award of the First Re-evaluator shall be taken as the marks obtained in re-evaluation. (ii) If on account of re-evaluation, the marks of the candidate is decreased upon an extent of 20% of the maximum marks, then the decreased valuation will be taken as the marks obtained provided the result of the candidate is not affected adversely i.e. his division is not changed or he does not fail in an individual paper/subject instead of pass. In such case the marks shall be decreased to the extent that his result is not affected adversely." 8. The conjoined reading of both the above provisions will make it clear that on re-evaluation, if the marks are enhanced upto 20%, the same shall be added and if the marks are reduced, the reduced marks shall be given, but it would not adversely affect the result of the examination. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was awarded 48 and 27 marks in the papers of Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.) and Irrigation & Water Resources Engineering respectively and he got re-evaluation of these two papers and on re-evaluation, in the paper of Irrigation & Water Resources Engineering, 17 marks were increased and thus, he was awarded increased marks i.e. 44 in place of 27 marks, but in the paper of Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.), 10 marks were reduced and thus, he was awarded reduced marks i.e. 38 in place of 48 marks. 10. The main case of the petitioner is that on re-evaluation, if the marks are decreased or reduced, the decreased marks should not be taken as the marks obtained and if that is done, the purpose of re-evaluation would be frustrated. 11. In my considered opinion, the above submission cannot be accepted. The provisions of re-evaluation, just quoted above, clearly provides that if the marks are increased upto 20%, the same shall be added and similarly, if the marks are reduced, the reduced marks shall be given and as per these provisions, on re-evaluation, since the marks of the petitioner in the paper of Irrigation and Water Resources Engineering were increased, therefore, he was awarded increased marks, but since his marks were reduced in the paper of Structural Engineering Design III (R.C.C.), therefore, he was awarded reduced marks and in doing so, no illegality has been committed by the respondents. On re-evaluation, when the petitioner is taking advantage of the increased marks, he must also accept the disadvantage of the decreased marks. The provisions of re-evaluation that if the marks are enhanced upto 20%, the same shall be added and if the marks are reduced, the reduced marks shall be given cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of re-evaluation that if the marks are enhanced upto 20%, the same shall be added and if the marks are reduced, the reduced marks shall be given cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, to prescribe the academic standards falls exclusively in the domain of special bodies like Senate, Board of Governors and Syndicate etc. The Court would normally not interfere with such prescribed standards. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thapar Institute of Engg. and Tech. v. Gagandeep Sharma, 2001(4) SCT 298 (SC) : ( AIR 2001 SC 3676 ). 12. Apart from this, the above provisions of re-evaluation that if the marks are enhanced upto 20%, the same shall be added and if the marks are reduced, the reduced marks shall be given were considered and found valid by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992 of 2002 Akash Bhandari v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (decided on 6.2.2003.) and the special appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 174/2003 filed by Akash Bhandari against the said order dated 6.2.2003 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court through judgment dated 10.3.2003.For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******