Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 395 (MP)

Arbind Kumar Diboliya v. Jiwaji University

2025-07-14

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER : Milind Ramesh Phadke, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- “1. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the answer sheets of the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court and the same may be revalued by another independent valuer and there after proper marks be awarded in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid question paper of Education Research Part-II and Education Technology Part-II and consequently revise the result of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 2.That, the respondents be further directed to award bonus marks to the question no. 1 and question no. 2 of question paper Educational Research as the said questions have been wrongly asked and consequently revise the result of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3. The Respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to invoke the powers conferred by the provisions of Vishvidhyalaya Adhiniyam and ensure fair and impartial enquiry against the guilty office ers and appropriate compensation be awarded in favour of the petitioners to face the unnecessary trouble and suffered mental agony. 4. Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner. 5. Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioners.” 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are employees of the Education department and in pursuance to the instructions of the government, the petitioners were selected for completing M.Ed. Training course through Online and seats were allotted to the petitioners in Govt. P.G. College of Education, Gwalior. In pursuance to the aforesaid selection, the concerned District Education Officer granted permission to the petitioners to complete the M.Ed. course from the concerning institution. Consequently, the petitioners took admission in the respective institution and successfully passed 1 st and 2 nd Semester Examinations of M.Ed. course. The respondents conducted M.Ed. 3 rd Semester Examination in the month of December, 2024 and the petitioners were allowed to appear in the said examination. While conducting the aforesaid examination between the period from 28.11.2024 to 02.12.2024, the question no. 2 of Question Paper Educational Research-II was wrongly asked as there was difference in Hindi and English versions, as such, it created confusion in the minds of the petitioners. Similarly, question no. 1 was partly out of syllabus. While conducting the aforesaid examination between the period from 28.11.2024 to 02.12.2024, the question no. 2 of Question Paper Educational Research-II was wrongly asked as there was difference in Hindi and English versions, as such, it created confusion in the minds of the petitioners. Similarly, question no. 1 was partly out of syllabus. The petitioners raised objection with regard to aforesaid question at Examination Center but the authorities of examination center refused to entertain the same and when the result of the aforesaid exam was declared by the respondents on 08.01.2025, it was gathered that out of total 25, 15 students who are the petitioners have been declared to have got AT-KT in the aforesaid exam. The petitioners were shocked by the aforesaid result of the exam as they had attempted all 5 questions rightly. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners approached the authorities and sought supply of their answer-sheets, however, the respondents/authorities allowed the petitioner to see their answer-sheets on 13.01.2025, but declined to supply said answer-sheets to the petitioners. After going through the said answer-sheets, it was gathered that the valuer had not properly valued the answer-sheets of the petitioners and despite attempting correct answers, he arbitrarily did not award complete marks to the petitioners towards the said questions and willingly / negligently, he had awarded less marks to them and thus, they had got AT-KT. It is pertinent to mention here that the said answer-sheets were shown to the petitioners without any provision and very short period was allowed to see those answer-sheets, as such, the petitioners could not identify all the questions in which the aforesaid illegalities were committed by the valuer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authority, but to no avail. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid illegal action of the respondent/Authority, the present petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted that the impugned inaction on part of the respondents in not redressing the proper and genuine grievance in the matter of awarding less marks in M.Ed. 3rd Semester Exam-2024 raised by the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 4. It is further submitted that while conducting the aforesaid Exam M.Ed. 3. It is submitted that the impugned inaction on part of the respondents in not redressing the proper and genuine grievance in the matter of awarding less marks in M.Ed. 3rd Semester Exam-2024 raised by the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 4. It is further submitted that while conducting the aforesaid Exam M.Ed. 3rd Semester-2024, the respondents asked Question No. 1 and Question No. 2 wrongly because the Question No. 1 was partly out of syllabus and there was difference in Hindi and English versions of Question No. 2 of Question Paper Education Research. The petitioners by making representation had requested the respondents to award bonus marks to the aforesaid two questions but the respondents have not taken any action. 5. It is further submitted while declaring the result of aforesaid exam the respondents had given mass students AT-KT which is impossible, as the petitioners had rightly attempted all the questions but valuer had arbitrarily not awarded full marks for the aforesaid questions and though the said illegalities had been brought into the notice of the respondents by submitting representations but there is no consideration on part of the respondents and by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the future of the petitioners is being jeopardized. 6. It is further submitted that earlier in the matter of valuation of Nursing course exam conducted by the respondent university mass students were declared fail and the authorities of the respondent university decided to conduct a probe in the said matter and large number of irregularities were found in declaration of the said examination and later on the students were declared pass, but this pattern has not been adopted in the present matter. 7. It is further submitted that the respondents are neither supplying the copy of answer-sheets to the petitioners nor they are inclined to conduct revaluation of the petitioners answer-sheets because of mala fide intention on their part whereas the petitioners have been deliberately given AT-KT. The petitioners are ready to pay necessary fees for supplying of answer-sheets and for revaluation. The inaction on part of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. The inaction on part of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein para 30.2, it has been held as under:- 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any ?inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioners are seeking the relief of revaluation of answer-sheet of subjects, Education Research part-II and Education Technology part-II from independent checker. Further the petitioners are seeking the bonus marks for the question no. 1 and question no. 2 of Educational Research-II, because according to them the said questions were either out of syllabus or were wrongly asked and consequently, the result of petitioners be revised. The reliefs sought by the petitioner are not maintainable in the light of ordinance No.5 of Jiwaji University, since, according to Jiwaji University ordinance No.5 “There shall be no revaluation in the semester PG and UG examination ie. M.A.,M.Sc., M.Com. M.Ed., M.H.Sc., MSW., B.Com.,B.Sc., B.A., B.H.Sc (Regular and Honor’s Courses), Diploma, PG Diploma only re-totaling is allowed”. 9. It was further submitted by the respondents in regard to the representation submitted by the petitioners that according to Jiwaji University, Exam Conducting Guide 2009, if any candidate have any objection/complaint regarding the question paper or any question, then the representation can be given to the examination Center Chief immediately after the examination, but in the present case the petitioners filed the written representation to the Jiwaji University after declaration of the result of the said examination. 10. It is further submitted that the question no. 2 of question paper Educational Research-Il was not wrongly asked and question no. 1 was not out of syllabus, since both of the questions were asked from the syllabus only. 10. It is further submitted that the question no. 2 of question paper Educational Research-Il was not wrongly asked and question no. 1 was not out of syllabus, since both of the questions were asked from the syllabus only. Even in the entire petition, the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that as to how the said questions were out of syllabus especially when the petitioners have not filed any literature or documents to strengthen their averments. With the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 11. Encountering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent/University, relying upon the contents of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though there is no provision for revaluation under the Ordinance No. 5 of university, however, it is the duty of the university to ensure independence and fairness in the evaluation of answer-sheet of candidates because their future relies on the same. It is also submitted that it is not correct to say that the petitioners submitted the representation belatedly and did not submit any representation to the Center Chief in terms of Exam Conducting Guide, 2009. As a matter of fact, the petitioners immediately submitted a representation dated 29.12.2024 to the Center Chief who refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the university seeking re-totaling and revaluation and for obtaining their answer-sheets, however, when their grievances were not redressed, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 13.01.2025 before the University. Hence, the said contention of the respondents regarding delay in submitting the objections is not liable to be accepted. 12. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioners took admission in the two years M.Ed course, they appeared in the 1 st and 2 nd semester examinations and were declared pass. As reflected from the record, the petitioners had appeared in the 3 rd semester examination, but they were declared to have got AT-KT. 13. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioners took admission in the two years M.Ed course, they appeared in the 1 st and 2 nd semester examinations and were declared pass. As reflected from the record, the petitioners had appeared in the 3 rd semester examination, but they were declared to have got AT-KT. Alleging the question No.2 of Question Paper Educational Research II was wrongly asked as there was difference in Hindi and English versions thereof and similarly question No.1 was out of syllabus, present petition has been filed praying for revaluation of petitioners answer-sheets of the said subject by another independent valuer or otherwise revise the result of petitioners by awarding bonus marks to the question No.1 and question No.2 of question paper Educational Research. 14. So far as relief prayed with regard to revaluation is concerned, the conduct of examination is governed by the Ordinance No.5 of the Jiwaji University. Clause 3(iii) of the said ordinance is reproduced below:- “There shall be no revaluation in the semester PG and UG examination ie. M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. M.Ed., M.H.Sc., MSW., B.Com.,B.Sc., B.A., B.H.Sc (Regular and Honor’s Courses), Diploma, PG Diploma only re-totaling is allowed”. 15. Since there is no provision for revaluation of the answer papers in the semester examinations i.e. M.Ed.; however, only retotalling is allowed in failed subjects; thus, in the absence of any provision for revaluation, prayer of revaluation is not maintainable and not legally sustainable. 16. So far as the ground taken by the petitioners that question No.1 of the exam of Educational Research II was not part of syllabus is concerned, the petitioners have not placed any authentic material on record to support the aforesaid ground, thus in absence of the same, the said ground is hereby rejected. 17. From bare reading of the above ruling cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that though this Court has the power to order revaluation of the answer scripts, but it can be done only “in rare or exceptional cases that too when a material error has been committed”. Since this Court does not find present case to fall within the category of “rare or exceptional case”, the ruling cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. 18. Though University in its reply had accepted the fact that since the syllabus of M.Ed. Since this Court does not find present case to fall within the category of “rare or exceptional case”, the ruling cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. 18. Though University in its reply had accepted the fact that since the syllabus of M.Ed. course in English, it can be presumed that the question which is written in English is only the correct one and moreover all the petitioners are teachers, therefore, knowledge of medium of question can be presumed to be known to them, but the fact which emerges from the record is that none of the petitioners had answered question No.2 in English rather they have chosen medium of Hindi to answer the said question and it is not the case of petitioners that since the question in Hindi was different to that as asked in English version and was answered in Hindi, therefore, the answer itself was held to be improper or wrong as proportionate marks had been awarded to all the petitioners for said question by the examiner, according to the answers given by them. 19. From perusal of the answer-sheets appended with the petition, it is also seen that so far as question No.2 was concerned, the examiner has not deducted the marks on the ground that the petitioners have not answered the question as per English version, therefore, their answers were wrong but subjectively the answer- sheets appear to have been evaluated and proportionate marks have been awarded. The contentions of the petitioners that some confusion had been created due to some difference in the Hindi and English version of question No.2, therefore, they could not answer the question correctly, consequently, had received less marks appears to be far-fetched as from the marking of the other questions, it would be evident that all the petitioner have obtained approximately similar marks for answering other questions, when compared with the marks obtained for answering question No.2, which shows that their answering pattern was same and in accordance thereto they had obtained marks. The question paper was of 80 marks and the marks for attempting 5 questions shows that they had secured very less marks in other 3 undisputed questions which also gives a reason to not to interfere in the present matter, thus, the contentions of the petitioner that the they should be awarded bonus marks for the said question No.2 does not appear to be proper. 20. In view of above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.