Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 961 (KER)

Sreeraj S Pai v. University Of Kerala

2020-11-12

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Certain students of the University of Kerala, face a rather unusual situation, where the marks obtained by them through a process of revaluation have been sought to be recalled by the University and subjected to further valuations for the singular cause that its variations, consequent upon revaluation, has exceeded a certain percentage of marks originally obtained by them. 2. The petitioners in these cases-which are factually autologous and involving singular, if not identical, legal assertions, thus deserving to be considered together -were students pursuing various courses of study in Colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala and they say that they have been constrained to assail the decision of the Syndicate of the University, dated 28.04.2020; and the resultant University Order dated 27.5.2020 -as per which, it has been stipulated that in the case of a paper being awarded more than 10% variation in marks through revaluation, it shall be valued again; and further that if the marks secured after this is higher than the original marks by 10% of the maximum marks of the paper concerned, a further revaluation will be done; with the average of these two being finally awarded to the candidate -to the extent to which it orders retrospective application to cases prior to it. 3. The petitioners assert that the Syndicate of the University obtain no competence to have decided to apply the rigour of the above decision retrospectively with effect from 15.06.2019, which is, in fact, the date of an earlier University order which mandated that only one revaluation be allowed and the 2nd and 3rd revaluations -which were available until that time - be discontinued. 4. The petitioners thus say that during the period from 15.06.2019 and until the impugned decision dated 28.04.2020, based on which the University Order dated 27.5.2020 had been issued -all students were allowed only one revaluation and the marks secured through it were added to their final mark list, along with their internal evaluation results. The petitioners allege that, however, on account of the impugned decision taken by the syndicate on 28.04.2020, the University has now notified them that their mark lists are withdrawn; and the revalued papers will be subjected to further revaluations, thus unsettling the marks already awarded to them. 5. The petitioners allege that, however, on account of the impugned decision taken by the syndicate on 28.04.2020, the University has now notified them that their mark lists are withdrawn; and the revalued papers will be subjected to further revaluations, thus unsettling the marks already awarded to them. 5. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the University Order dated 27.5.2020 -which is based on the decision of the Syndicate dated 28.04.2020 -to the extent to which it sanctions retrospective effect from 15.09.2020, be set aside and their original mark lists be directed to be reinstated. 6. Ineluctably, being alerted by the various allegations, averments and assertions made by the petitioners as afore in these writ petitions, on 19.11.2020, when these matters were considered by me, Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, submitted that the Syndicate of the University had decided to reconsider the matter and that its meeting was scheduled on 10.11.2020 for such purpose. He had therefore, prayed that this matter be called after that date. 7. It is in the afore circumstances that these writ petitions have been placed before me for consideration today. 8. When this matter was called today, Sri.Thomas Abraham submitted that the University Order, dated 27.05.2020 -which is based on the decision of the Syndicate dated 28.04.2020 -has been modified and that retrospective effect of the decisions therein has been decided not to be pressed into effect. He, however, submitted that with respect to those candidates who have obtained 20% more marks than their original marks through revaluation, the Syndicate has proposed, subject to the approval of this Court, that their papers alone will be subjected to a second valuation. 9. Therefore, as matters now stand, it is limpid from the stand of the University that the retrospectivity of the University order dated 27.05.2020 is withdrawn; however, with an adjunct limb, as afore seen. This Court, consequently is only concerned with the impact of this decision of the Syndicate, which is reflected in the minutes of its meeting held on 10.11.2020. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the University, Sri.Thomas Abraham, and all of them unequivocally agreed that these matters can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, since all the pleadings have been completed. 11. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the University, Sri.Thomas Abraham, and all of them unequivocally agreed that these matters can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, since all the pleadings have been completed. 11. Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the University, pointed out that even in the latest decision taken by the Syndicate on 10.11.2020, it has been clearly stated that they will implement it only with the permission of this Court, in deference to the pendency of these writ petitions. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that though the Syndicate has taken a decision to withdraw the retrospectivity of the University order dated 27.5.2020, it was felt desirable to further value the answer sheets of the candidates who have got variation of more than 20% of the total marks in revaluation, because this inordinate difference suggests either error or disparity caused on account of personal predilections of the valuers. 12. Even when I hear Sri.Thomas Abraham as afore, the fact remains that all the petitioners in these cases have obtained vested rights on account of the University order dated 15.06.2019, which allowed only one revaluation; with marks obtained in the same being added to their final mark list. It is uncontested that it is on such basis that all the petitioners had been given their final mark lists and that all of them have been shown to have passed in the respective papers. 13. However, subsequently, on the basis of the impugned decision taken by the Syndicate on 28.04.2020, a new order was issued on 27.05.2020, deciding that the papers of all the petitioners will also be subjected to multiple revaluations and that their marks will be suitably modified. 14. I am afraid that no Court can find favour with the decision of the Syndicate, dated 28.04.2020, to impose retrospectively therein, since, as I have already said above, the petitioners have incontrovertibly obtained vested rights in having their mark lists issued to them and in having been granted the benefit of revaluation. 15. Therefore, rightly, the Syndicate has now thought it fit not to apply their order dated 27.5.2020 retrospectively; but I notice that they have still decided to add an adjunct limb, namely, to revalue the answer scripts of those candidates who have got variation of more than 20% from the original valuation. 16. 15. Therefore, rightly, the Syndicate has now thought it fit not to apply their order dated 27.5.2020 retrospectively; but I notice that they have still decided to add an adjunct limb, namely, to revalue the answer scripts of those candidates who have got variation of more than 20% from the original valuation. 16. Without need for detailed expatiation, it is apodictic that this again, indirectly allows unsettling of the marks given to the students, thus being crystally intended to operate retroactively; and hence is rendered vitiated for the same reasons which have guided the Syndicate to withdraw retrospectivity of the order dated 27.5.2020. I, therefore, fail to understand how this could have been even proposed. 17. Indubitably, such decisions can be applied by the University only prospectively, and not in the case of students who had already obtained the benefit of the earlier University orders and who had already been received their mark lists under its mandate. 18. This is even more so because, many of the petitioners -if not all of them -have already taken advantage of the final mark lists already issued to them and have obtained admissions for further studies or have secured employment; and to, therefore, cancel them nearly a year later, putting them to detriment on the basis of the decisions taken by the Syndicate on 28.04.2020, cannot obtain the imprimatur of any Court. As the inevitable denouement of the afore scenario, I order these writ petitions and declare that the petitioners will be governed exclusively by the University Order dated 15.06.2019; and that the decision of the Syndicate taken on 28.04.2020, leading to the University order dated 27.05.2020, will only apply prospectively and to the students who write the examinations thereafter. Axiomatically, all the impugned decisions and orders of the University in these matters will stand set aside. Needless to say, in view of my holdings and declarations above, the petitioners will be entitled to apply for/secure education/employment or to seek enrollment with the Bar Council of Kerala (in the case of law students) on the strength of the mark lists already issued by the University in terms of the order dated 15.06.2019. Needless to say, in view of my holdings and declarations above, the petitioners will be entitled to apply for/secure education/employment or to seek enrollment with the Bar Council of Kerala (in the case of law students) on the strength of the mark lists already issued by the University in terms of the order dated 15.06.2019. As a necessary corollary, the University is directed to correct the Student Login Page of the petitioners, so as to enable them to obtain their final mark lists and Degree Certificates without any avoidable delay, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.