Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 160 (KAR)

Nagamma v. Gulbarga University

2006-02-13

N.K.PATIL

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to send Financial Accounting Paper-II of the petitioner for evaluation to a nominee nominated by this Court by obliterating the marks assigned by the two private evaluators. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent -University to declare the result of the petitioner based on such evaluation. Alternatively, petitioner has also sought for a direction, directing the respondent - University to appoint a committee to look into the matter in view of the evaluation made by the two private competent evaluators /lecturers wherein the evaluation of the two private competent evaluators is 100% different than the one evaluated by the Registrar Evaluation, Gulbarga University. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is studying B. Com. degree course in third respondent- College. Petitioner being a meritorious student, has secured 95% marks in Pre-University (Commerce) Examination and has secured 92% in the first year B. Com. Examination. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in the second year B. Com. Examination conducted, in respect of Financial Accounting - Paper-II, petitioner has secured only 35 marks out of 100 marks and therefore, the valuation in respect of the said paper is erratic and not proper. The petitioner having a good academic record, being dissatisfied with the award of 35 marks out of 100 marks in respect of Financial Accounting Paper-II pertaining to II year B. Com. Examination, felt necessitated to file an application for re-valuation of the said paper, as permissible under the existing Regulations of the respondent - University. After re-valuation of the said paper, petitioner has been awarded with 46 marks out of 100 marks. Being further not satisfied with the marks obtained in the said second valuation/re-valuation of the said paper, on the ground that, she had done fairly well and was expecting much higher marks in the said paper, petitioner submitted two representations to the respondent University vide Annexures F and G respectively to look into the matter once again and refer the matter to third examiner for valuation of her paper in respect of the aforesaid subject in question, once again. It is the case of petitioner that, the said representations given by petitioner are neither considered nor disposed of as on today nor the competent authority has looked into her earlier performance. It is the case of petitioner that, the said representations given by petitioner are neither considered nor disposed of as on today nor the competent authority has looked into her earlier performance. With this background petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the material available on record, the grounds urged and the contentions taken by learned counsel for petitioner, it is not in dispute that, petitioner has appeared for the II year B. Com. Examination conducted by the respondent - University for the academic year 2003-04 in respect of Financial Accounting Paper II, in which she has secured 35 marks out of 100 marks. Being dissatisfied with the said result of the petitioner, petitioner has filed an application for re valuation of her paper in respect of the said subject. As per the Regulations of the University, the respondent - University has accepted the application filed by petitioner for re-valuation of the said paper and the said paper of the petitioner has been revalued and in the said revaluation, petitioner has secured 46 marks out of 100 marks. Still, not being satisfied with the said award of marks in the revaluation of Financial Accounting Paper-II, petitioner gave two representations to the respondent- University, bringing it to their notice that, she has secured 95% marks in Pre-University course and 93% in First Year B. Com. and that, in view of erratic valuation by the examiners, particularly in respect of Financial Accounting Paper-II of II B. Com. taken up by petitioner, the matter requires re-consideration by the concerned authority and therefore, she has sought for re-valuation of the said paper from the private valuators as she is entitled for more marks in the said subject. It is pertinent to note here itself that, the respondent - University, after entertaining the application filed by petitioner for re-valuation, has got the answer script of the petitioner in the subject in question evaluated as per the Regulations governing re-valuation of the answer scripts. The said re-valuation of the answer script of Financial Accounting Paper-II has been got done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of the respondent - University. The said re-valuation of the answer script of Financial Accounting Paper-II has been got done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of the respondent - University. It is the stand of respondent - University that, once, re-valuation is done by the second examiner, University has no authority to sit in judgment on the issue of second valuation, since the matter acquires finality once re-valuation is done by the second examiner and the result is made known to the examinee. The University cannot go on arranging for re-valuation till the examinee is fully satisfied. The dissatisfaction of the petitioner for scoring less mark is not a ground for referring the matter to third examiner. The evaluation as well as re-evaluation of the papers of petitioner have been done by well qualified examiners from out of the panel of examiners, who are duly approved by the competent authority of the University. Further, it is specifically pointed out that, as per the existing Regulations of the respondent - University, the University cannot do anything beyond the scope of the Regulations by entertaining the request of the petitioner for evaluation of her aforesaid paper by two private lecturers at her instance, as they are obviously hand-picked by the petitioner nor the marks supposed to have been given by the said private lecturers can be relied upon by the University. University has got its own rules and Regulations and they cannot deviate from the same by accepting the request of the petitioner. 4. Further, the submission of the petitioner in the instant writ petition that, she has secured 95% in Pre-University (Commerce) Examination is totally false for the reason that, as per the PUC marks card produced by petitioner herself at Annexure A to the writ petition, it can be seen that, she has secured 427 marks out of 600 marks, the percentage of which comes to 71% and not 95% as contended by her. The statement of the petitioner that, she has secured 92% marks in I year B. Com. is also false on the ground that, as per the marks card of I B. Com. produced by herself, she has secured only 412 marks out of 600 marks, the percentage of which comes to 68.62%. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately mentioned in the petition that, she has secured 95% in PUC and 92% in I B. Com. is also false on the ground that, as per the marks card of I B. Com. produced by herself, she has secured only 412 marks out of 600 marks, the percentage of which comes to 68.62%. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately mentioned in the petition that, she has secured 95% in PUC and 92% in I B. Com. when the same are false and contrary on the face of the marks card produced by herself vide Annexures A and B to the writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent University submitted that, there are no good grounds made out by petitioner nor any force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner to interfere in the matter to re-consider the request of the petitioner for third valuation by two private lecturers at her instance, when the same is not permissible under the existing Regulations of the respondent- University. Further, it is also significant to note that, when the candidate has filed the application for re-valuation, after going through the terms and conditions stipulated under the existing Regulations of the University for re-valuation, the same has been accepted by the University and re-valuation has been got done and the result of such re-valuation is also made known to her. Again, it is not open for petitioner to contend that, still she is entitled to more marks and valuation made by the said examiner is also arbitrary, erratic and the same has to be got evaluated by two private lecturers. On the said basis, she has also given two representations requesting the concerned authority to reconsider the matter. But, it can be seen that, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the ground that, once the candidate gets admitted by accepting the terms and conditions of the Regulations of the University, it does not lie in her mouth to request to go beyond the scope of the mandate of the University or the Regulations of the University. As it is, the Regulations are framed by the academicians on the basis of the report submitted by the competent professors, experts in the field, etc. keeping in view the interest of the students. The Regulations are not framed by an individual. As it is, the Regulations are framed by the academicians on the basis of the report submitted by the competent professors, experts in the field, etc. keeping in view the interest of the students. The Regulations are not framed by an individual. The decision is taken in the committee and thereafter the matter is placed before the academic council and after a decision is taken by the academic council the matter is referred to the syndicate and once the syndicate takes a decision, the same is forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University for approval. When all the aforesaid process is complete and petitioner, having accepted the terms and conditions and the Regulations of the University while getting herself admitted, cannot at this juncture, seek for third valuation contrary to the Regulations of the University nor this Court can interfere in matters of academic nature. It is the sole discretion of the academicians to take the decision in the best interest of the students as per the norms, by applying the relevant statutes and taking into consideration the opinion of the experts in the relevant field. The petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for by her nor such a relief can be granted by this Court. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 6. Petition dismissed.