Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1059 (KER)

Suni Thomas v. Mahatma Gandhi University Kottayam

2020-12-16

AMIT RAWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT : The challenge in the present writ petition is to the amended clause 14.2 Regulation of the Mahatma Gandhi University, notified by notification dated 25.1.2017 pertaining to revaluation of result of the candidates who are not able to obtain sufficient marks. The writ petitioner is undergoing LLB course (3 year) at Government Law College, Ernakulam and is now in the 4th semester of the said course. According to the petitioner, she fared well in the 1st Semester Examination held in May 2018 and expecting good marks in all the papers. The result was published in January, 2019, she received the copy of the mark list late due to delay in finalising the migration process as she had studied degree course under the Calicut University. 2. Except in the paper 'Legal Language' petitioner got high marks. In the written examination of 'Legal Language' the petitioner could secure only 38 marks out of 80. According to the petitioner she obtained good marks in the 2nd and 3rd Semester examinations and had obtained a total of 67.5% and 70.5% marks respectively, therefore, submitted application for revaluation of the paper “Legal Language”. Vide communication dated 24.8.2019, the 2nd respondent intimated the petitioner that her answer book in the subject “Legal Language” has been revalued and that the original marks awarded would stand. On a reply to Ext.P2 application, it was intimated to the petitioner that she had secured 53 out of 80 marks in the 1st revaluation and 33 out of 80 marks in the 2nd revaluation. It was also intimated that as per Regulations, if the increase in marks on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks from the three valuations, ie. the original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation shall be awarded. If the marks after the first revaluation or the average after second revaluation happens to be less than the original marks, the original score will stand. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 15% of 80 comes to 12 marks. The petitioner in the subject 'Legal Language' secured 38 marks. However, on revaluation she obtained 53. Since the margin is more than 12 it has gone for second revaluation and the marks were reduced to 33. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 15% of 80 comes to 12 marks. The petitioner in the subject 'Legal Language' secured 38 marks. However, on revaluation she obtained 53. Since the margin is more than 12 it has gone for second revaluation and the marks were reduced to 33. However, if the candidate had secured only the margin of 11, he/she would have been given the benefit and secure high marks. 4. Even otherwise, there can be variation with regard to the approach and comprehension of the examiner, in case the paper is sent for two revaluations. Therefore, Ext.P5 regulation is unreasonable and arbitrary. Once the student obtained high marks the same should be treated as final instead of undergoing a second revaluation. The Regulation in force cannot stand the test of reasonability and arbitrariness. In support of the aforementioned contention, petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput and Another V. Gulbarga University [2013 KHC 4875) to contend that even when two views are possible and the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance and the court cannot substitute its own view by sitting in appeal, but it cannot be treated as an absolute rule as absolute power corrupts absolutely. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the amended regulation by saying that such regulation lacks any reasoning for sending for second revaluation. 6. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that as per clauses 14.2 & 14.4 of the Revaluation Regulation dated 25.1.2017 if the increase in Marks/WGP on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum Marks/WGP of the Paper/Course, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of nearest two marks/WGP from the three valuations, i.e. the original first revaluation and second revaluation shall be awarded to the candidate and if the marks/WGP after first revaluation or the average after second revaluation happens to be less than the original Marks/WGP, the original score will stand. 7. In the instant case, the revaluation was done by the examiner selected by the Joint Registrar on behalf of the Controller of Examination from the list approved by the Vice-Chancellor for a particular examination. Every valuation is being done as fresh valuation. 7. In the instant case, the revaluation was done by the examiner selected by the Joint Registrar on behalf of the Controller of Examination from the list approved by the Vice-Chancellor for a particular examination. Every valuation is being done as fresh valuation. The teacher who values a paper has no chance to know about the marks or whereabouts of previous valuation and he does not even know whether it is first revaluation or second revaluation. A second revaluation is not required if the increase is reasonable, the limit of which is fixed as 15% of the maximum Marks/WGP of the paper/Course. Any increase equal to or beyond 15% is considered unreasonable and mandates a second revaluation to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in the marks to be awarded. There are instances of no change of marks even after revaluations, thus, there is no ambiguity or discrimination in the aforementioned regulation and urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. It would be appropriate to produce the contents of communication Ext.P3 as well as unamended and amended Clauses produced in Ext.P5 notification. Ext.P3 NO.EJ III/RTI/LL.B/2272/19 Dated:-18.09.2019 From The Deputy Registrar VII (Exams) & Public Information Officer. To Suni Thomas Amprayil House E.R.G Road Kochi-682018 Sir/Madam, Sub:-RTI Act 2005 – Reply to information sought – reg. Ref:-Your application under RTI Act 2005-received on 07.09.2019 With reference to the above, it is informed that Suni Thomas, candidate with Reg.No.44648 for the 1 Semester LL.B (3 year) degree examination held in May 2018 has secured 53 and 33 marks on first and second revaluation respectively for the paper 'Legal language'. There was no third revaluation. As per Regulations, if the increase in marks on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks from the three valuation, i.e. the original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation shall be awarded. If the marks after the first revaluation or the average after second revaluation happens to be less than the original marks, the original score will stand. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks from the three valuation, i.e. the original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation shall be awarded. If the marks after the first revaluation or the average after second revaluation happens to be less than the original marks, the original score will stand. If you are not satisfied with the reply, please feel free to tender your appeal before the first appellate authority & Pro-Vice Chancellor (Dr.C.T.Aravindakumar), Mahatma Gandhi University, P.D.Hills P.O., Kottayam 686560 (phone 0481 2731005) before 30 days from the date of receipt of the reply. Yours faithfully, Sd/- ROY KURUVILLA DEPUTY REGISTRAR VII (EXAMS) & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Ext.P5 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY NOTIFICATION NO.AC.L/8/RV/2016 Dated 25.1.2017 Sub: Amendment to Revaluation Regulation-reg. Ref: 1. Notification No.Ac.L/1/R/RV/2012/105 dated 7.7.2012 2. NotificationNo.Ac.L/1/R/RV/2012/Amendment/129dated11.12.2012 3. Notification No.Ac.L/1/R/RV/2014/ Amendment/24th March 2012 4. Minutes Item No.O.A.2 Ac.15 of Academic Council held held on 24.11.2016 and Syndicate held on 31.12.2016 It is hereby notified that the following amendment to the Clauses 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 & 14.5 of Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations for Revaluation and Scrutiny of answer scripts, read (1) above has been approved by the Academic Council, held on 24.11.16, as per Statute 1 of Chapter 39 of M.G.University Statutes 1997, which has been laid before the Syndicate, held on 31.12.2016 as per Statute 3 of Chapter 39 of the Statutes 1997. The amendment shall come into force with immediate effect. 3 14.2 If the increase in the marks/grade points on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 10% but less than or equal to 25% of the maximum marks/grade points of the paper/course, a second revaluation shall be conducted. IF the change in marks/grade points after the second revaluation is less than or equal to 25% of the maximum marks/grade points of the paper/course, the average of the nearest two marks/grade points from among that of the original valuation, first revolution and second revaluation, shall be awarded to the Candidate. If the difference between any two marks grade points of the above three valuations happens to be the same, the average of the highest two marks/grade points shall be awarded to the candidate 14.2 If the increase in marks/WGP on the first revaluation is greater than or equal to 15% of the maximum marks/WGP of the paper/course, a second revaluation shall be conducted. After the second revaluation, the average of the nearest two marks/WGP from the three valuations ie. The original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation, shall be awarded to the candidate. If the difference between any two marks/WGP of the above three valuations happens to be the same, the average of the highest two marks/WGP shall be awarded to the candidate. 9. Before discussing further, the marks obtained by the petitioner read thus: Sl. No. Subject Marks obtained for written examination Internal Marks Total 1. Constitution 48/80 19/20 67/100 2. Contract 46/80 19/20 65/100 3. Family Law 55/80 19/20 74/100 4. Law of crimes 54/80 19/20 73/100 5. Law of torts 44/80 18/20 62/100 6. Legal Language 38/80 17/20 55/100 In the paper 'Legal Language' petitioner obtained 38 marks out of 80. On first revaluation petitioner obtained 53. Since it exceeded 12%, the same was sent for second revaluation and petitioner obtained 33. By taking the average of 38 and 33 came to 35, less than the original marks. On that account, the University maintained the original marks, i.e., 38 marks. Looking at the regulation, and the fact that the court cannot remain as a mute spectator if the regulation or the rules are not only arbitrary and unreasonable but also not based on intelligble differentia can always interfere while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The framers did not envisage a situation where a student if obtains 11 marks would have had the benefit of 52 marks in case he or she had also obtained 38. There would not have been any occasion for second revaluation. In my view, the intention behind framing the rule for sending second revaluation is wholly unintelligible. At the first revaluation if there was an increase of 12 marks, petitioner should have been given the benefit thereof. The possibility of conflicting awarding of marks by different examiners cannot be ruled out. In other words, the approach on each answers given to the questions can always be subjective, depending upon person to person. 10. The ratio culled out in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput' case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has to be backed by some reasonability and basis. In view of the observations made above, the communication Ext.P3 based on Regulation Ext.P5 is not sustainable. The regulation is struck down. 10. The ratio culled out in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput' case (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has to be backed by some reasonability and basis. In view of the observations made above, the communication Ext.P3 based on Regulation Ext.P5 is not sustainable. The regulation is struck down. The Department is directed to frame the rules in terms of the observations made above and accord the benefit to the petitioner accordingly. Let this exercise be undertaken within two months.