Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1461 (DEL)

SAUMYA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

2006-08-28

ANIL KUMAR

body2006
ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought production of the record relating to entrance examination for the academic session 2006 including OMR answer sheet, question paper attempted by the petitioner and the certified statement of correct answers and a direction to the respondent to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner and declare her to have qualified the medical entrance examination held on 22. 5. 2006 and to hold an enquiry by an independent authority preferably by CBI directing them to enquire into the alleged large scale fraud committed by the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner contended that she is a very bright student and in support she has produced the marks sheet of secondary and senior secondary examinations. The petitioner appeared in the medical entrance test conducted by the respondent. It was contended that she attempted a total of 188 questions. Petitioner asserted that out of 188 questions she was able to recall 117 questions and after coming home she noted down the answers on a piece of paper and thus as per her calculation she ought to have scored a total of 339 marks for 117 questions she could recall to have attempted out of total 188 questions and thus she should have been declared successful in entrance examination. ( 3 ) THE result of the petitioner which was declared, however, showed that she scored 50 marks in Physics, 78 in Chemistry and 200 in Biology and thus she scored a total of 328 and her rank was 358. The petitioner, therefore, sought re-checking of her answer sheet in accordance with the rules. On rechecking no change in total marks obtained and rank were found and she was intimated about the result of rechecking by letter dated 1. 6. 2006. ( 4 ) BEFORE rechecking the Assistant Controller of Examinations had called the petitioner as well as her parents. The OMR answer sheet was shown to the petitioner and she was allowed to examine the same. After checking her answer sheet on the basis of key answer provided to her, the petitioner also endorsed on her representation dated 7. 6. ( 4 ) BEFORE rechecking the Assistant Controller of Examinations had called the petitioner as well as her parents. The OMR answer sheet was shown to the petitioner and she was allowed to examine the same. After checking her answer sheet on the basis of key answer provided to her, the petitioner also endorsed on her representation dated 7. 6. 2006 that she had seen her OMR answer sheet of dumet Examination, 2006 and that she had attempted 45 questions in Physics, 47 questions in Chemistry and 95 questions in Biology and according to the key which was provided to her she had 19 correct answers in Physics, 25 correct answers in Chemistry and 59 correct answers in Biology. Still dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking re-evaluation on the basis of certified statement of correct answer and for an enquiry in this alleged large scale fraud. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has produced the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner as well as the key answers of DUMET, 2006, series 29. The key answers is the OMR answer sheet with the punched holes on the correct answers. The copy of the representation dated 7. 6. 2006 is also produced where the endorsement has been made by the petitioner about seeing her answer book and the key answers on the basis of which she checked her answer book manually and made an endorsement that she had 19 correct answers in Physics, 25 correct answers in Chemistry and 59 correct answers in Biology. ( 6 ) THE respondents had produced the answer book for series 29 having correct answers where correct option has a punched hole. The key answer for series 29 also stipulates that four marks are to be added for question No. 56 to all the candidates. The key answer also reflect that question No. 90 had a different answer which was corrected by sticking a tape on the punched hole, and the correct answer was punched afterwards. I have no reason to disbelieve the key answers produced by the respondents. The plea of the petitioner that certified statement of correct answer ought to have been produced is thus without any merit nor the petitioner has any such right for re-evaluation of his answer book in her presence on the basis of key answers to be allegedly certified by someone. The plea of the petitioner that certified statement of correct answer ought to have been produced is thus without any merit nor the petitioner has any such right for re-evaluation of his answer book in her presence on the basis of key answers to be allegedly certified by someone. The relevant rule regarding rechecking is as under:"1. 15 The candidates may apply for rechecking of their answer sheets within seven days from the date of declaration of DUMET result on payment of rs. 100/- on the prescribed form available at office of the Faculty of Medical sciences. If there is any change in the result after Re-checking, the candidate concerned will be informed accordingly before counseling. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner has failed to show that he has a right to get his answer sheet re-evaluated along with other answer sheets of other candidates on the basis of alleged certified key answers as no rule has been pointed out entitling the petitioner to get his answer books re-evaluated in such a manner. In the absence of any rule permitting or allowing a candidate to re-evaluate his answer book in such a manner, this Court can not direct the authorities to re-evaluate the answer books of the petitioner along with the answer books of other candidates with key anwers. A candidate cannot seek re-evaluation of his answer scripts merely on his own perception of good performance and recalling the answers of the questions attempted by her. Mere fact that a candidate may think that he has performed extremely well and yet not awarded marks which he rightly deserved, may not by itself justify the re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Reliance can be placed on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1543 where the Supreme Court had held as under:"the process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks does not attract the principle of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examinees is involved. The principle of natural justice can not be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and can not be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performance or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been proper and fair evaluation of the answers by the examiners. "". Any drawback in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court can not strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act. "". . It is in 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 the utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labor and time involved in the process. "". The court 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. " ( 8 ) IN another matter the (2004) 6 SCC 714 , Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors the Apex Court had set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge who had ordered re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The Supreme Court had re-affirmed the law laid down by the Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another (supra ). The Supreme Court had held:"the main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. The Supreme Court had re-affirmed the law laid down by the Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another (supra ). The Supreme Court had held:"the main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evalution of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover Page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and Ors. , In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to'` have his answer-books re-evaluated. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to'` have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. "8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided. ( 9 ) EVEN otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified. The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court either to the registrar of the Patna University or to the Principal of the Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed-over to the standing counsel for the patna University who returned the same to the Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same had been examined by two teachers of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve such an objective, a centralized system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein different examiners examine the answer-books on the basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model answer was not supplied to the two teachers of the Patna Science College. There can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in General science paper as 63 cannot be justified. 9. No malafide has been imputed by the petitioner against anyone and in the circumstances the allegations of the petitioner are based on her own surmises and conjectures. The petitioner does not have any right to have the answer sheet evaluated in her presence nor she can insist on the same under the rules and regulations. The allegation of the petitioner that the key answer sheet made available to her did not inspire confidence and seems to have been freshly prepared with information written in hand is also without any basis based on her own assumptions. The averment of the petitioner requesting the respondent No. 2 to get four sets of question papers although having the same questions but having different sequences to be also evaluated is also without any legal basis nor the petitioner has any right in the facts and circumstances and under the law. ( 10 ) THOUGH the petitioner has claimed an independent enquiry preferably by cbi into the large scale fraud, however, no such relevant particulars have been given except petitioner's own performance and dis-satisfaction that the result declared by the respondents, which is contrary to the expectation of the petitioner. ( 10 ) THOUGH the petitioner has claimed an independent enquiry preferably by cbi into the large scale fraud, however, no such relevant particulars have been given except petitioner's own performance and dis-satisfaction that the result declared by the respondents, which is contrary to the expectation of the petitioner. The petitioner's own expectation about her performance and result being contrary to the expectations does not reflect any large scale fraud by the respondents. ( 11 ) THE petition is an abuse of process of law and does not merit any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.