Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2185 (RAJ)

Maharaja Ganga Singh University v. Bikkar Singh

2019-08-14

DINESH MEHTA, S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2018, passed by learned single Judge in a group of writ petitions, which were filed by the students pursuing their second-year degree course in Law. 2. The respondents- writ petitioners were admitted to the L.L.B three years' degree course in the academic session 2015-16 and appeared in second year examination held in March-April, 2017. Though, they got supplementary in the results, (which were declared in July, 2017) they were provisionally admitted to the third year, even while their supplementary examination (for IInd year) were still due. 3. The supplementary examinations of the second year were held in September - October, 2017; the writ petitioners appeared, but remained unsuccessful, when the results were declared in December, 2017. 4. These students then applied for reevaluation of their answer-books of supplementary examinations, but their result remained unaltered even after reevaluation done in December 2017. 5. The petitioners raised a grievance before the Vice-Chancellor of the University alleging that their answer-books had not been checked properly. When no relief was forthcoming, they approached this Court for the following relief’s:- "(i) The respondent No. 2 University may kindly be directed to evaluate the answer books properly and award the marks accordingly to all the petitioners. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners-students to appear in the examination of Third Year of the Three Year Law Course on the basis of result declared as a result of grant of prayer No. 1 above. (iii) In the alternative, the respondent No. 2 University may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to appear only in those papers in respect of which they have been declared unsuccessful. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed." 6. On 16.03.2018, when the writ petition came up for admission, a learned Single Judge perused the answer-books, which were obtained by the petitioners under Right To Information Act, 2005. Finding certain discrepancies, the single judge, by an interim order, directed the University to allow the petitioners to appear in the third year examination, while also requiring them to take appropriate measures for rectification of the discrepancies, which were noticed by the Court. Finding certain discrepancies, the single judge, by an interim order, directed the University to allow the petitioners to appear in the third year examination, while also requiring them to take appropriate measures for rectification of the discrepancies, which were noticed by the Court. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the interim order dated 16.03.2018, which runs as under:- "It is evident from the answer-sheets placed on record that the respondent-University has failed in discharging its duty. It is stated that in some cases, there is difference in the marks which are written against the answer to some of the questions and the marks which have been entered in the evaluation list. In other cases, even questions have not been checked and no marks have been awarded. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... Put up on 25.04.2018, Meanwhile, the petitioners are permitted to take their third year examination scheduled to be commenced from 4th April, 2018. Meanwhile, the respondent-University is directed to look into the serious irregularity, discrepancies as pointed out and take appropriate measures for rectification in a manner as deemed fit as the discrepancies as pointed out in the petition and apparent in the answer-sheets may even invite serious repercussion including initiating of enquiry by independent agency/criminal proceedings, if so required." 7. An in-house committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in compliance of the above order, which furnished its report dated 01.05.2018. The report stated that no irregularity was found in the evaluation of the answer-sheets of the supplementary examinations. 8. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the third year examinations became due and in terms of the above interim order, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the third year examinations. However, their results were directed to be kept in a sealed cover. 9. In all 85 students approached the Court by filing 10 writ petitions. On 08.05.2018, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions after noticing that there was no reason to disbelieve the outcome of the result/checking done by the new panel of subject experts. The petitioners' claim for checking the answer-sheets afresh was rejected, while observing thus:- "This Court in order to satisfy itself also called for the list of panel of the subject experts as prepared by the Committee to check the answer books. The petitioners' claim for checking the answer-sheets afresh was rejected, while observing thus:- "This Court in order to satisfy itself also called for the list of panel of the subject experts as prepared by the Committee to check the answer books. A perusal of the said panel shows that almost all the subject experts/teachers have more than 11 years of experience. Some of them are also having 15, 20, 25 and 30 years of experience. The said list provided is made part of the record. Although, the objections have been filed by the petitioners through their rejoinder but this Court has no reason to disbelieve or doubt the outcome of the result in pursuance to the rechecking done by the new panel of subject experts as appointed by the duly constituted committee at the behest of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent - University. Thus, the first prayer of the petitioners that the respondent - University should be directed to evaluate their answer-sheets properly and award the marks accordingly is rendered in-fructuous." 10. Thus, though, the petitioners' first claim, or prayer regarding reevaluation of answer-books was rejected yet, the court noticed that only one examiner, i.e. Ms. Kusum was appointed to check the answer books of the varieties of subjects (Jurisprudence; Law of Crimes; Labour Law etc.). Learned Single Judge felt concerned as to how one examiner could be expert of all the subjects and recorded the displeasure in following words:- "... ... ... The answer books have been corrected in an absolutely careless manner so much so that only one examiner i.e. Mrs. Kusum has been appointed to check the answer books of the different subjects such as Jurisprudence, Law of Crimes, Labour Law, Administrative Law, Public Interest Litigation and Company Law. The copies of different subjects corrected by one and only Mrs. Kusum have been placed on record as Annexure-13 collectively. This Court fails to understand as to how one examiner was expert of all the subjects. The wrong and illegality amounting to almost an offence is unforgivable. The irresponsible manner of correcting the answer books and thus, playing with the career of the students has shaken the faith in the educational system resulting in apprehension, uncertainty and multiple problems. The efforts of the Committee in its report to try and give a clean chit is uncalled for in view of the various policy was followed. The irresponsible manner of correcting the answer books and thus, playing with the career of the students has shaken the faith in the educational system resulting in apprehension, uncertainty and multiple problems. The efforts of the Committee in its report to try and give a clean chit is uncalled for in view of the various policy was followed. Certain examiners gave marks against each questions while others did not award any marks against each question but made mention of the marks on the title page. It is stated that as per the guidelines, the examiner must award marks only on the title page of the answer-book and must not award marks inside the answer-book. If it is so, it is not understood as to how the others have awarded the marks inside the answer-books. Not awarding marks inside the answer books and only awarding marks on the title page is defective in itself and is capable of being used and misused in an arbitrary manner. The fact also remains that no uniform policy was followed by the examiners giving rise to suspicion in the minds of students." 11. Having observed this, learned Single Judge directed the Secretary, Department of Higher Education to constitute a three member committee and enquire into the matter. 12. The learned Single Judge recorded a categorical finding that there is no serious infirmity in the awarding of marks to the writ petitioners and did not accede to their request to have the answer books re-checked; rather, the impugned judgment directed the writ petitioners to re-appear in the second year examinations as ex-students. However, the learned Single Judge protected their examinations of IIIrd year, by holding that results of their third year examination could be declared only after they cleared, or passed in their IInd year's Papers. 13. A Division Bench of this Court, on 12.09.2018, while admitting the appeals, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by learned single Judge. Thereafter, the writ petitioners appeared in all the papers of their second year examinations and some of them failed, for which, the University's appeal in respect of those writ petitioners were disposed of as in fructuous. 14. The remaining students, who passed their second year examinations, during pendency of this appeal, filed applications and claimed that they be permitted to appear in third year examinations scheduled in April, 2019. 14. The remaining students, who passed their second year examinations, during pendency of this appeal, filed applications and claimed that they be permitted to appear in third year examinations scheduled in April, 2019. Though they lacked requisite attendance, yet in view of the pending litigation, this Court permitted the students to submit their examination forms for third year, with a condition that their results would not be declared, without Court's leave. 15. Undeniably, the respondents-writ petitioners have cleared all papers of second year, after disposal of their writ petitions. They, thereafter appeared in the third year examinations in the month of April, 2019, albeit under orders of this court. As a matter of fact, they have hardly gained anything out of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018, of learned Single Judge, as the operation of that order was a suspended/stayed by this Court. 16. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - writ petitioners at the outset submitted that these appeals have been rendered in-fructuous. He nevertheless prayed that the result of the respondents, which has not been declared so far (because of the order dated 26.02.2019), may be ordered to be declared. 17. Mr. Rastogi, learned senior counsel vehemently opposed the submissions so made by Mr. Sandhu and contended that the appeals filed by the University have not been rendered in-fructuous, inasmuch as the University feels concerned with the finding of irregularities and discrepancies recorded by learned Single Judge, which has led to the direction to constitute a three member committee headed by the Secretary of the Government to enquire into the matter. 18. There is however no dispute about the fact that the respondents have cleared all papers of second year examination and appeared in the third year's examination, of course under the orders of the Court. It was however submitted by Mr. Rastogi that the respondents have appeared despite falling short of requisite attendance. He however could not dispute that essentially they did not take any advantage of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge. He, thus, did not seriously oppose the prayer of the respondent' counsel to declare the result. 19. Learned senior counsel, however firmly maintained that learned Single Judge erred in going through the answer-sheets and then recording a finding that the answer books have not been properly checked. He, thus, did not seriously oppose the prayer of the respondent' counsel to declare the result. 19. Learned senior counsel, however firmly maintained that learned Single Judge erred in going through the answer-sheets and then recording a finding that the answer books have not been properly checked. Highlighting the observation of learned Single Judge reproduced hereinabove, particularly the part of the learned Single Judge's order, wherein it has been recorded "... ... ... that this Court has no reason to believe or doubt the outcome of the result in pursuance of the re-checking done by the new panel of subject experts... ... ...", learned Senior Counsel contended that having found no reason to doubt the result of re-evaluation; having rejected petitioners' prayer for re-checking of the answer-sheets; there was no material or evidence before the Writ Court to record a finding that the answer books have not been properly checked. 20. It was argued that examining or checking of the answer-books, of theoretical subjects depends upon hordes of factor and differ from examiner to examiner - the marks may vary at each assessment. Once the reevaluation is carried out and re-checking pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge was completed, the learned Single Judge should not have probed into the answer books and examined them at the first place and then, despite having recorded that there was no infirmity in the report of the experts, there was no reason to record a finding or irregularity. The direction to constitute a three member committee was issued essentially being driven by the fact that all the answer-sheets of the subsequent examinations were examined by one Ms. Kusum, emphatically argued Mr. Rastogi and prayed that the order of learned Single Judge to the extent it contains observation against the appellant University so also the direction No. 'B' and 'D' in particular, be quashed. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered view that learned Single Judge committed an error in wading through the answer-sheets and recording the findings in the answer scrips. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered view that learned Single Judge committed an error in wading through the answer-sheets and recording the findings in the answer scrips. That apart, having categorically found that there was no serious irregularity and discrepancy and turned down the petitioners' prayer for sending the answer books for reevaluation, there was hardly any material or occasion to direct the Principal Secretary of the State Government to constitute a three-member committee under his legis. The discrepancy, which was noticed by the learned Single Judge, that one Ms. Kusum had checked all the answer-books, by itself, does not constitute a reason to conclude that the copies have been checked in careless manner or some irregularities have been committed at the level of the University. 22. In the matters of recruitment, but in somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP [ (2018) 2 SCC 357 ] depreciated such approach of the High Court. 23. As a result of the foregoing reasoning this court hereby sets aside the impugned order of learned Single Judge, more particularly, the direction issued in para- 'B' and 'D' thereof. 24. The result of the respondents for third year examination shall, however, be declared by the University. The decision of the present appeals shall have no bearing on their results. 25. The appeals are allowed, in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.