Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 671 (JK)

Pawan Kumar v. Vice Chancellor, University

2016-12-21

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, TASHI RABSTAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This LP appeal is preferred against the order of Writ Court made in OWP No. 627/2011 dated 30.08.2013 wherein the appellant had challenged the provision not permitting re-evaluation of answer scripts of MCA course and the consequential rejection of appellant's request by order dated 20.04.2011 with a further direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the appellant and treat the appellant to have been admitted to 3rd Semester of MCA course. It is the case of the appellant before the Writ Court as well as before this Court that he is an employee of University of Jammu having Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications. He was granted admission to MCA course as an in-service candidate of University of Jammu. He was admitted to 1st Semester and his claim was that he be directly admitted to 3rd Semester of MCA course. The same was not acceded to by the respondents. The appellant appeared in the examinations after studying all the six semesters held in the month of July 2010. He was shown to have not passed in the subjects CS-401 and CS-403. The appellant applied for copy of the answer scripts and according to him, he found that the mathematical questions had not been evaluated properly. He issued a legal notice to respondents seeking re-evaluation of his answer scripts which was turned down by a communication dated 20.04.2011 by stating the reason that as per Statute of University, revaluation of answer scripts of MCA course is not permissible. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the provision, prohibiting the revaluation of answer scripts of MCA course on the ground that the same is discriminatory in nature and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the further contention of the appellant that the exclusion of re-evaluation of answer scripts of MCA course while permitting the re-evaluation of answer scripts of other courses is not based on intelligible differentia, so as to sustain the prohibition of re-evaluation. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the points which were urged before the Writ Court and relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1953 SC 404 (Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal), AIR 1958 SC 731 (Mohd Hanif Quareshi & Ors. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the points which were urged before the Writ Court and relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1953 SC 404 (Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal), AIR 1958 SC 731 (Mohd Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & AIR 1974 SC 1755 (General Manager South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhantti). 3. Learned counsel relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1953 SC 404 contended that if legislation is challenged, the same can be upheld only, if there is an intelligible differentia and in this case, there is no plausible reason to deny re-evaluation of answer scripts of MCA Course. 4. In the objections filed by the University of Jammu before the Writ Court, it is stated that Statutes of the University have been framed after detailed deliberations by different academic bodies of the University and finally approved by the competent authority. MCA is a professional course and after the completion of this Course, the candidates have to serve in a private sector in cut throat competition where the employees hardly gets any chance to re-evaluate their mistakes and it is precisely the reason that the course has deliberately and intentionally been excluded from the provisions for re-evaluation of answer sheets in the University Statutes in order to build efficient and responsible professionals. It was further submitted that the answer scripts of the appellant were evaluated by a panel of evaluators and marks were awarded as per their wisdom and expertise in the relevant subject and the plea that the marks were awarded wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily cannot be accepted. The Writ Court considered all the contentions raised by the appellant as well as the respondents and upheld the decision of University of Jammu and dismissed the writ petition. 5. In this appeal, the very same points were urged and the same decisions were relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The Writ Court considered all the contentions raised by the appellant as well as the respondents and upheld the decision of University of Jammu and dismissed the writ petition. 5. In this appeal, the very same points were urged and the same decisions were relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the University of Jammu relying upon the statements made in the objections argued that the appellant was fully aware with regard to the statutory provisions when he joined MCA course and he having subjected to the said statutory provisions by taking part in the examination and having failed in two subjects, had filed the Writ Petition challenging the statute, prohibiting re-evaluation of answer sheets of MCA Course. Learned counsel for the University has relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 9 SCC 157 (Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology & Anr. v. Gagandeep Sharma and Anr. and (2004) 13 SCC 383 (Board of Secondary Education v. Prabas Ranjan Panda & Anr.) to sustain his contention that the academic experts having taken a decision on valid grounds, the Court is not having expertise to go into the issue as to whether the decision is justified or not. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the statutory provisions and the academic performance of the appellant. 8. The appellant was very well aware when he joined MCA course that for MCA Course, there is no provision to seek for re-evaluation of answer scripts. The appellant also appeared in the examination knowing fully well that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer scripts which he wrote. The appellant after knowing his results that he could not pass in two subjects, has chosen to seek re-evaluation which was contrary to statutes. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that exclusion of re-evaluation of answer sheets of MCA course is discriminatory, cannot be appreciated as MCA course is a separate course in Master of Computer Applications and answer scripts of that course was never re-evaluated. Thus, there is no discrimination as alleged by the appellant. 10. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that exclusion of re-evaluation of answer sheets of MCA course is discriminatory, cannot be appreciated as MCA course is a separate course in Master of Computer Applications and answer scripts of that course was never re-evaluated. Thus, there is no discrimination as alleged by the appellant. 10. Insofar as the contention that for other courses re-evaluation is permitted and in MCA course also re-evaluation should have been permitted, the same also cannot be appreciated as the academic experts of the University have taken a decision after due deliberations not to permit re-evaluation of Answer scripts of MCA course and some other courses. In the objections filed by the University of Jammu, the reason for not permitting the re-evaluation of answer sheets of MCA course is mentioned. The said reason is making out an intelligible differentia to exclude the re-evaluation of answer sheets of MCA Course. 11. The issue whether the examinee is entitled to seek re-evaluation of answer scripts came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1542 , (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. in paragraph 29 has held as under: "As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, 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. 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. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case". 12. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case". 12. In the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 4116 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission Patna and others), a question arose with regard to the request of re-evaluation of answer scripts of a candidate, who appeared in the written test conducted by the PSC for examination in the Judicial Service and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the decision of High Court ordering re-evaluation has upheld the decision of Division Bench. In the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 3098 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court directing re-examination of answer sheets of a candidate who appeared in Higher Secondary Examination 2004 by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme reported in 2004 (13) SCC 714 and 2007 (1) SCC 603 . 13. In the decision reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 (Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences and Ors.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of rule providing for re-evaluation of answer sheets, no direction should be issued because direction for re-evaluation of answer sheets would throw many problems and in the larger public interest, such direction must be avoided by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission). Applying the judgments (supra) to the facts of the case, challenge made by the appellant in seeking quashing clause 1-(B) in II Statute governing the re-evaluation of answer scripts, Chapter XLI i.e. Master Degree and other Post Graduation Diploma Course taught in the University excluding MCA, MCA, LLM as illegal, arbitrary, has no substance. The Writ Court considered all the aspects and dismissed the writ petition rightly so. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.