Chattisgarh High Court
Sarmistha Day vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 21 July, 2010
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION C No 336 of 2009 & ALONG WITH WPC No 337 of 2009 338 of 2009 339 of 2009 and 340 of 2009
Sarmistha Day
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
...Respondents
! Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain Advocate for the petitioners
^ Shri NN Roy Panel Lawyer for the State Respondent No 1 & Shri Ashish Shrivastava Advocate with Shri Harsh Wardhan Advo
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 21/07/2010
: Judgement
O R D E R
(Delivered on 21st day of July, 2010) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. All the above writ petitions seek a direction to the respondent-University to revaluate the answer-sheets of the petitioners in respect of the papers wherein they could not acquire minimum passing marks. Thus, the question of law involved in this batch of petitions is asto whether after revaluation of the answer-sheets of the papers wherein the petitioners could not secure minimum qualifying marks, whether again revaluation may be directed.
2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner in the following writ petitions, are as under:
W.P.(C) No. 336/2009:
The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Final) Geography, of D.L.S. College, Bilapsur. She appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result, the petitioner was `Fail'. The petitioner obtained 29 marks out of 100 in the subject Climatology and Oceanography. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer-sheet. In revaluation of answer-sheet, the petitioner obtained 31 marks and the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 48 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner, in accordance with memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein she was awarded 33 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6).
W.P.(C) No. 337/2009:
The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of C.M.D. College, Bilapsur. He appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result the petitioner was declared `Fail'. The petitioner obtained 31 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein he obtained 45 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein he was awarded 30 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6). W.P.(C) No. 338/2009:
The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa. He appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result the petitioner was declared `Fail'. The petitioner obtained 33 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein he obtained 45 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein he was awarded 38 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6).
W.P.(C) No. 339/2009:
The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa. She appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result, the petitioner was declared `Fail'. The petitioner obtained 33 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 44 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein she was awarded 36 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6).
W.P.(C) No. 340/2009:
The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir-Champa. She appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result, the petitioner was declared `Fail'. The petitioner obtained 34 marks out of 100 in the subject Economic Geography- II. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. V.K.Tiwari, Professor of Geography, C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilaspur in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 50 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Vikram Verma, Sandipani College, Ujjai, Dr. Ravi Mishra, Madav College, Ujjain and Dr. R.R.Gorasya, Mandav College, Gwalior, wherein she was awarded 36 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were found qualified in the valuation done by the professors namely Dr. L.N.Verma of K.G. Arts & Science College, Raigarh, who has awarded 48, 45, 45, 44 out of 100 marks (In W.P.(C) No. 336, 337, 338 and 339 of 2009) and Dr. V.K.Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Geography, C.M.D. College, Bilaspur who has awarded 50 marks (in W.P.(C) No. 340/2009). The same ought to have been taken into consideration and the petitioners ought to have been declared `Pass' in the aforestated subjects.
4. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University would submit that in the aforesaid cases, the respondent-University has acted in a fair, justified and legal manner. The petitioners, being the student of Master of Arts (Previous) and (Final), appeared in the examination conducted for the academic year 2007-2008. The result was announced and the marksheets were issued wherein the petitioners were shown as failed in the respective subject, as aforestated. On being dissatisfied with the marks awarded to them, the petitioners applied for revaluation of the respective answer sheets wherein they could not even secure minimum passing marks. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that Ordinance 5 of the University as finalized in the 9th Meeting held on 05.03.2005 (Annexure R/1) of the University provides for the remedy of revaluation, if a student is dissatisfied with the marks awarded, on payment of certain fee. This rule clearly stipulates that in order to ensure impartiality and to deal with utmost fairness, the answer sheets of the students, who are aggrieved by the evaluation, may apply to the University alongwith the prescribed fee and on receiving of such application, their answer sheets would be sent to expert valuers outside the University. Accordingly, their answer sheets were sent to two independent valuers. The answer sheets were examined by the valuers and they had submitted the revalued answer sheet and a report showing question wise marks obtained by the petitioners (Annexure R/2).
5. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the dispute is in between the petitioners and the respondent-University and no relief has been claimed against the State.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. As per the procedure stipulated in Ordinance 5, if the marks awarded by even by one of the independent valuers exceeds or reduces the marks obtained by the student, by a margin of10% of the total number of marks, then there is a case which warrants change of marks in such contingency the university would proceed with the next step. The University, after having noticed some change in the marks granted by the independent valuers, on the application of the petitioners, referred all the answer sheets to the Committee of three experts and the marks awarded by the Committee was taken into consideration. On the marks granted by the Committee, the result remained unchanged as there was no variation by reducing or enhancing the marks by a margin of 10 percent of the marks obtained by the petitioners in the first valuation.
8. In no case, the petitioners have obtained minimum qualifying marks by the Committee except the valuation done by the Dr. L.N.Verma and Dr. V.K.Tiwari, at the instance of the petitioners, privately. The same cannot be held as final. The memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) which was adopted and followed by the University to have transparency and fairness in the valuation after change of marks by the independent valuers on revaluation, the final answer sheets were referred to the Committee of experts and the marks awarded by them were taken into consideration. Thus, there was no change found.
9. Thus, the answer sheets of the concerned subjects wherein the petitioners have not obtained qualifying marks have been subjected to revaluation three times. The first original valuation, thereafter revaluation by two independent valuers and third by a committee of experts and as such, the relief sought for by the petitioners to direct a fresh valuation of the answer sheets again, cannot be granted. So far as action against respondent-University is concerned, there is no reason to pass any order of this nature as the respondent-University has followed all the procedures and has got the answer sheets examined by the experts.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the above writ petitions are bereft of merits. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
11. There shall be no order asto costs.
JUDGE