Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 114 (ORI)

Mitrabinda Acharya v. Utkal University

2017-01-25

D.DASH

body2017
JUDGMENT The petitioner by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties, the Utkal University and its Controller of Examination for declaring the correct result of the petitioner after rechecking and/or revaluating the Mathematics-III paper of +3 Final Degree (Science) Examination, 1995. 2. Petitioner’s case is that she had appeared in the final Degree +3 (Science) Examination held by the Utkal University in the year 1995. However, on getting the result, in Mathematics-III paper she found to have been awarded with 39 marks as against 100 marks, whereas her expectation was to secure 90%. She applied for rechecking/readdition. On this application, the awarded marks being changed, 45 marks was awarded. This was so informed vide Annexure-2. It is further stated that as per information, all the answers have not been evaluated. Thus it is said that the opposite parties have dealt the matter in a very casual fashion playing with the career of the petitioner and in utter disregard to the same. 3. The opposite parties in the counter has stated that on receipt of application from the petitioner, said answer paper of the petitioner had been placed before the Board of Conducting Examiners for evaluation as per Section 207(II) of the Statute of the University. On such evaluation, it is further stated that the mark having revised stood at 45 which had been so intimated to the petitioner. The details of the process of readdtion/rechecking of marks with its phases have been stated in para 5 of the counter. The delay in the process however is stated to be on account of non-availability of members. It is further stated immediately after the Board of Examiners finalized the matter on 10.09.1996, on that very day the revised mark has been intimated to the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the answer script was produced in Court on 14.07.1997 and on that day, this Court finding the marks to have been awarded on the top page in different inks differently asked the opposite parties to file an affidavit. Pursuant to the same, affidavit has been filed. The observations of the Court on that occasion run as under:- “The answer script of the petitioner was produced before us. From the top of the page, we find that in different inks total marks secured by the candidate are indicated differently. Pursuant to the same, affidavit has been filed. The observations of the Court on that occasion run as under:- “The answer script of the petitioner was produced before us. From the top of the page, we find that in different inks total marks secured by the candidate are indicated differently. Originally it was 39 given by the examiner on 12.6.1995. There are two entries in green inks showing total marks total marks 59 and 67. There is also another entry in green ink showing it to be 50. Finally, in blow ink it is shown to be 45. The University shall file a detailed affidavit indicating the reasons for such wide changes and records relating to examination of this paper by various Examiners/Board of Conducting Examiners as asserted in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit filed on 26.11.1996. Call this matter on28.7.1997. Further affidavit as directed above shall be filed by 25.7.1997.” 5. (A). In the affidavit following clarifications have been given:- “That as regards the averments made in para 4 and 5 of the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner bearing Roll No.5708P92040 has appeared the +3 Final Degree Examinations, 1995 from B.J.B. College Centre, Bhubaneswar in Mathematics and Statistics as Pass Subjects and Physics as Honours Subject. After the publication of the result of the result of +3 Final Degree Examinations, 1995 the petitioner applied for Re-addition of marks in Mathematics Paper-III on 23.8.95 by depositing the requisite fees. On receipt of the application as such the said answer Paper-III was placed before the concerned Board of Conducting Examiners for evaluation as per Section 207(II) of the Statute. After evaluation, her total mark in the Mathematics Paper-III was revised from 39 to 45 and the revised mark was intimated to the petitioner vide the Office Letter No.1259/96 dated 10.9.96. A copy of the said letter is annexed herewith as Annexure-A. It is further submitted that the answer paper in Mathematics Paper-III may be produced before the Hon’ble High Court as and when felt necessary. (B) That as regards para 6 of the petition, it is further submitted that the process of Re-addition/Re-checking of marks of the answer paper starts after the expiry of 42 days from date of publication of the result. This Re-addition process involves various phases, i.e., (i) Arrangement of Scripts, College-wise, subject-wise and paper-wise. (B) That as regards para 6 of the petition, it is further submitted that the process of Re-addition/Re-checking of marks of the answer paper starts after the expiry of 42 days from date of publication of the result. This Re-addition process involves various phases, i.e., (i) Arrangement of Scripts, College-wise, subject-wise and paper-wise. (ii) The scripts are placed before the Tabulator/(s) approved by the Syndicate/Vice-Chancellor for the Purpose, from any of the teachers (Lecturers, Readers and Professors) of the P.G. Department of Utkal University. Since, the Tabulation work is not a full-time job and the teachers so appointed used to take that work in addition to their respective duties in the respective Departments, and as such, it takes a lot of time to dispose of the numerous cases of Re-addition. It is further submitted that the inordinate delay was caused due to non-availability of the members and non-conduct of the meeting of the Conducting Board. It is worth mentioning the fact that the University conducts various Examinations under the Statutes and is always fair to the students in disposing examination affairs. It does not have any prejudice or biased attitude against any students and is governed by the Statutes. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the Board of Conducting Examiners finalized the matter on 10.9.96 and on the very day the petitioner was communicated vide letter no.1258/96 dated 10.9.96. (C) Again in further affidavit it has been stated: “That the petitioner bearing Roll No.5708P92040 has appeared the +3 Final Degree Examination, 1995 from B.J.B. College Centre, Bhubaneswar in Mathematics and Statistics as Pass subjects and Physics as Honours subject. On receiving the application from the petitioner for re-checking and re-addition of marks in Mathematics Paper-III, after the publication of result of the +3 Final Degree Examination, 1995, the answer paper of the petitioner was put before the Tabulators who are duly appointed by the University as per the Statutes. It came to the notice of the Tabulator that some of the portions of the answers left unvalued by the concerned Examiner. In view of this the same answer paper has been put before the Board of Conducting Examiners for scrutiny under Section 207 of the Statutes read along with Section 14.2 and 14.3 of the Guidelines on Conduct of Examination and Evaluation Programme of the +3 Degree Examinations. In view of this the same answer paper has been put before the Board of Conducting Examiners for scrutiny under Section 207 of the Statutes read along with Section 14.2 and 14.3 of the Guidelines on Conduct of Examination and Evaluation Programme of the +3 Degree Examinations. The unvalued portions which have been awarded marks by the Board are as follows:- Sl. No. Marks awarded 1. Question No.4(a) 3 2. Question No.4(b) 4.5 3. Question No.5(b) 3 4. Question No.10(a) 2 5. Question No.10(b) 2 14.5 That it is further submitted that the petitioner has answered three questions from Group-A such as question Nos. 1,2 and 4 where as the petitioner is required to answer two question only. Moreover, the answer to the question No.2 has been cancelled by the petitioner herself which has been awarded marks by the Examiner earlier. As a result, the marks so awarded stand cancelled by the Board. The rest of the answer paper so evaluated by the concerned Examiner is found correct by the Board.” 6. The answer script kept in sealed cover was opened during hearing I in presence of learned counsel for the parties who have thereafter been heard at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the copy of the relevant question paper. 7. Carefully gone through each of the questions and the marks as awarded on those have been gone through. It is seen that there are three Groups of questions. Group A is assigned with 25 marks; Group B with 25 marks and Group C is for 50 marks. In Group ‘A’, one has to answer any two of four questions where questions no. 1,2 and 4 have three items and question no.3 has two. In Group B any two questions are to be answered out of four and in Group C, all are to be answered. In all the four questions of Group ‘B’, two items each are there and Group C having two questions; each has ten items. The answer script having been evaluated finally following marks have been awarded. In Group B any two questions are to be answered out of four and in Group C, all are to be answered. In all the four questions of Group ‘B’, two items each are there and Group C having two questions; each has ten items. The answer script having been evaluated finally following marks have been awarded. GROUP-A GROUP-B GROUP-C 1(a)=4 4(a)=3 5(a)=4 6(a)=1 9(a)=2 10(a)=2 (b)=0 (b)=4.1/2 (b)=3 (b)=0 (c)=4 (c)=2 (c)=2 (c)=1 (d)=2 (d)=0 (e)=2 (e)=0 (f)=2 (f)=0 (h)=2 (h)=0 (j)=2 (i)=0 (j)=0 It appears that primarily the confusion has arisen and also subsequent overwriting on the top page of the answer script, firstly because of the fact that the petitioner has answered three questions as against requirements of two. While finally evaluating, however it is seen that the marks have been again given to the answers in respect of the question nos. 1 and 4 in Group ‘A’, for computing marks as the mark fetched on those two answers are higher than the question no.2. So, earlier of total marks 17 has been increased to 17.5. It is further seen that the first examiner had not taken it into consideration the cancellation of the answers to the question no.2 by putting cross marks on the margin. This petitioner has herself put the cross marks in item no.1 of Question No.2 of Group ‘A’ in item no. 2 and 3. However marks awarded in that question had been taken into consideration at that instance. The action does not appear either as deliberate or outcome of gross negligence. Finally, marks have been awarded after re-examination. Thus the scoring on the answer script on its top page get well explained and finally it is seen that the marks awarded in each of the question in three Groups have been added. The same stood at 45 by rounding up 44.5 which actually increased of 5.5. So, it is not found to be an act of manipulation of answer scripts as has been projected before this Court. The evaluation having been done accepting the petitioner’s request, in consonance with the provision in statute 207(II) of the University wherein no such apparent mistake being seen and rather it surfaces that in the said exercise, the mistake remaining on account of confusion inadvertently going as it is, have been rectified. The evaluation having been done accepting the petitioner’s request, in consonance with the provision in statute 207(II) of the University wherein no such apparent mistake being seen and rather it surfaces that in the said exercise, the mistake remaining on account of confusion inadvertently going as it is, have been rectified. In such a situation, now after lapse of more than two decades in the absence of any provision entitling a candidate to have his answer book re-evaluated again, the prayer made by the petitioner for further rechecking and/or evaluation is untenable. 8. In the result, the application stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Application dismissed.