Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 856 (RAJ)

Mahendra Dutt Sharma v. JNVU

2006-03-15

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on merits of the petition. 2. The petitioner as a student of Part-I of LL.M. course took the examination conducted by the respondent University and was declared fail for having secured 11 marks out of 100 in paper IV of Legal Education and Research Methodology as shown in the marks-sheet (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent University. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation and after re-evaluation received marks-sheet (Annexure-2) on 25.08.2005 wherein for the same paper IV, the petitioner now got 36 marks; but still failed, minimum required being 40. 3. The petitioner submits that this figure of 36 in the said paper of Legal Education and Research Methodology has been awarded to him with reference to Clause (ii) of Para 6 of the decision taken by the Committee of the respondent University that reads as under:- “6(ii) In case the award of the re-evaluator exceeds the above limit of 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the average of the marks awarded by the main examiner and the re-evaluator will be taken as the marks obtained with atleast 20% of maximum marks as minimum and 50% of the marks in excess of 20% be also added to the final award of the marks.” 4. The petitioner contends that such a decision by the respondent University in awarding marks on the basis of average of the marks awarded by the two examiners subject to minimum of 20% of marks; and then to add 50% of the marks in excess of the 20%, is arbitrary, irrational and even discriminatory inasmuch as no other University has taken such a decision as has been taken by the respondent University so as to arrive at a fanciful figure in the name of average calculation. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 6. In what manner the cases of re-evaluation of answer-books are to be dealt with and in what manner the revised marks are to be awarded, are all academic matters and decision in relation thereto is required to be taken by the University concerned. 6. In what manner the cases of re-evaluation of answer-books are to be dealt with and in what manner the revised marks are to be awarded, are all academic matters and decision in relation thereto is required to be taken by the University concerned. The petitioner has taken the examination being aware of all the rules and regulations of the University concerned, and is now not entitled to question a particular policy decision of the University in relation to an academic matter nor this Court is inclined to pronounce any Judgment over the prudence or otherwise of such a decision. The ground of discrimination is equally bereft of substance. The respondent University is an autonomous body and is entitled to take any police decision in relation to its own academic matters and any decision by any other University is hardly of any relevance to the fact situation and subject matter of the present case. 7. It of course appears that there had been a marked difference in the two evaluations in relation to the answer-book of paper IV of the petitioner inasmuch as the first examiner has awarded 11 marks out of 100 to the petitioner whereas it appears that the second examiner has awarded 41 marks in the same paper; and after applying the formula as evolved by the University in Para 6(ii) as quoted hereinabove, the petitioner has been awarded 36 marks in the very same paper. However, for such matter of substantial variation in the assessment of the two examiners, the University is required to provide for some workable formula so as to award the marks which may be representative of nearly the true and correct marks. In that view of the matter, the decision as taken by the University, to take average of the marks awarded by the two examiners and then to add 50% marks in excess of the 20% of the prescribed maximum marks for the paper concerned, cannot be said to be arbitrary or suffering from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 8. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.