Kerala High Court
Laiji.R vs University Of Kerala on 14 October, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15926 of 2009(I)
1. LAIJI.R., 'LAIJI BHAVAN',
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
4. SONA RANI A.S., 'SARASWATHY',
For Petitioner :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.15926 OF 2009 (I)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a M. Ed student under the Kerala University. In the examination held in February, 2007, she appeared and was issued Ext.P1 mark list. For the written examination of IIIrd paper, Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education, she was secured 47 marks. Ext.R1(a) proceedings of the Controller of Examinations shows that, with the marks she secured, the petitioner was eligible to be awarded 3rd rank. However, rank certificate was not issued despite the representations made.
2. While matters stood thus, newspapers of Ist May, 2009, carried a news stating that the 4th respondent, who had initially secured 22 marks and failed in the paper III, succeeded in getting her answer paper revalued five times and was finally awarded 47 marks and thus managed to secure second rank in the final examination. It was also reported that the 4th respondent is a leader of Students Federation of India and was the Vice Chairperson of the University Union. The suggestion was that it was on account of her political influence she could manage to get WPC.No.15926 /09 :2 : her answer paper revalued even in the absence of any regulation providing for the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the new report. Petitioner submits that, on coming to know of these developments, she made enquiries and came to know that the University had revalued the answer paper of the 4th respondent, allegedly in implementation of the judgment of this court in WP
(c).No.18680/07, a copy of which is Ext.P3.
3. According to the petitioner, when results were declared, coming to know that she had secured only 22 marks and failed paper III, complaining about the valuation and making allegations against the valuers, the 4th respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of Ext.P3 judgment of by this court directing the Vice Chancellor to examine the grievances she had raised in the complaint. It is stated that in pursuance to the said direction, the Vice Chancellor called for the remarks of the Chairman of the Board of Studies regarding the competence of examiner and the method adopted for valuation of paper III. It is stated that the Chairman reported that there was no irregularity in the evaluation process. It is stated that, ignoring the said report, the politically constituted Syndicate of the University ordered revaluation of paper III of the 4th respondent by WPC.No.15926 /09 :3 : somebody from outside the State. Thus according to the petitioner, misusing the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, the answer paper was revalued, inflated marks were given and rank was assigned to the 4th respondent.
4. Petitioner again filed Ext.P4 representation to the Vice Chancellor complaining of the delay on the part of the University in issuing the rank certificate but however no action was taken. It was in these circumstances the writ petition was filed praying to quash the proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 to revalue the answer script of the 4th respondent in paper III -M.Ed 2006-07 of the 4th respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue rank certificate to the petitioner for the Academic year 2006-07.
5. In the counter affidavit filed, the University is admitting that originally 3rd rank was awarded to the petitioner. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment, the matter was considered by the Vice Chancellor, and that a report was obtained from the Chairman of Board of Studies. It is stated that the report thus obtained from the Chairman of the Board of Studies was incomplete and therefore the Vice Chancellor ordered that the answer script of the 4th respondent be submitted for revaluation by a competent examiner outside the State, to WPC.No.15926 /09 :4 : determine whether the candidate was eligible for pass in the same subject. It is stated that accordingly the answer script was sent to a Professor and Head of Department of Education of a University outside the State to determine whether the candidate was eligible for pass in the examination. That Professor is one who is allegedly included in the panel of question paper setters. It is stated that the aforesaid Professor returned the answer scripts certifying that the candidate was eligible for pass in the concerned subject. Thereafter, the answer script was again forwarded to the same Professor to value the answer script and that he allotted 45 out of 75 marks to the 4th respondent.
6. Again, the Vice Chancellor ordered a second valuation of the answer script by another Professor and Head of Department of yet another University outside the State and that after revaluation, this Professor awarded 48 out of 75 marks to the candidate. The results thus obtained were considered by the Syndicate in the meeting held on 29.4.2009 and Ext.R1(c) resolution was passed approving the result and authorized the Controller of Examinations to release the mark list.
7. The 4th respondent has filed a very detailed counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, she was a brilliant WPC.No.15926 /09 :5 : student and that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the examiners to fail her. It was therefore that she filed the writ petition No.18680/07 raising serious allegations against the University in general and examiners in particular. It is stated that it was considering the seriousness and peculiarity of the allegations and its gravity that this Court passed Ext.P3 judgment. It is stated that the University was perfectly justified in what it has done to remedy her grievances. The 4th respondent has also produced Exts.R4(3) and (4), the mark list and the provisional certificate issued by the University incorporating the marks awarded on revaluation of her answer papers.
8. I have considered the submissions made. Regulations have been framed by the Ist respondent governing revaluation of answer papers and Chapter VII of the First Statutes of the University, provides for revaluation of answer scripts of courses, other than Post Graduate Courses. It is the settled position of law that the right of a candidate for revaluation of answer scripts will be governed by the regulations framed by the University and in the absence of enabling regulations, revaluation cannot be sought. It has been so held by the Apex Court in the judgments in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher WPC.No.15926 /09 :6 : Secondary Education and another V. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarshath etc.,(1984 SC 1543) and in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education V. Ayan Das(2007 (4) KLT 535(SC). In the case on hand, a reading of Ext.R1(d), the note submitted by the Controller of Examinations to the Syndicate of the University, shows that the 4th respondent had asked for a revaluation which was not entertained by the University in the absence of Regulations providing for the same. It was there upon the 4th respondent filed WP(c).No.18680/2007 resulting in Ext.P3 judgment. In the judgment, taking note of the allegations and the extra ordinary circumstances made out, this court directed as follows;
"In the circumstances, I direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider Ext.P3 and pass a just and equitable order, if necessary, by ascertaining views from a competent valuer other than those who have valued the answer paper, as to whether the petitioner's allegations in respect of the valuation of the answer paper are correct or not. If necessary the matter shall be placed before the syndicate in its next meeting."
9. A reading of the aforesaid direction shows that what the University was called upon to do was to consider Ext.P3 complaint, if necessary by ascertaining the views of a competent WPC.No.15926 /09 :7 : valuer of the University other than the one who valued the paper. It was in compliance with this direction, the University called for the remarks of the Chairman of Board of Studies. It is averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the Chairman of the Board of Studies did not find anything wrong with the valuation done and also certified the competence of the valuer and this averment in the writ petition is not denied by the University in its counter affidavit. If the University or the Vice Chancellor was not satisfied with the report so obtained from the Chairman of the Board of Studies, what should have done was to call for a further report or a clarification from the said officer. Instead of adopting such a course, what the Vice Chancellor has done was to forward the answer paper for revaluation and that too successively, for which there is no provision in the Regulation. Further neither in the counter affidavit nor in any of the documents, has the respondents disclosed the name of the Professors who revalued the answer script or the University where they are working and this conduct of the University to say the least, is suspicious. The justification that all these have been done in compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment also cannot be accepted. This court did not ask the University to do anything against its regulations, WPC.No.15926 /09 :8 : but only called upon it to redress the grievance only in accordance with law. On the other hand, the directions were misused to wangle a situation and to award a glorious result to a failed candidate. In my view there is absolutely no justification for the course of action adopted by the Vice Chancellor or the University. The impugned action of the Vice Chancellor and its ratification by the Academic Council or Syndicate are illegal and calls for interference.
10. I am disturbed by yet another action on the part of the University. Considering the allegations, this court by order dated 22.6.2009 directed the University not to issue the rank certificate to the 4th respondent. But the University issued mark list dated 17.8.2009 and provisional certificate dated 28.8.2009 incorporating the revised marks and the justification now offered is that the direction was not to issue rank certificate only. In my view this conduct reflects an attempt on the part of the University and its officials to overreach the orders of this court and has to be deprecated. All these tempts me to think that there is substance in the insinuations made in Ext.P2 news report. However, I leave it at that.
WPC.No.15926 /09 :9 :
11. In the circumstances I dispose of this writ petition quashing the steps taken by the University to revalue the answer sheet of the 4th respondent in paper III-M.Ed 2006-07. However it is clarified that it will be open to the University to carry out the directions in Ext.P3 judgment in a bona fide manner. It is directed that provisionally a rank certificate will be issued to the petitioner subject to the verification to be undertaken by the University as directed in Ext.P3 judgment.
Though the officials of the University responsible for all the aforesaid deserves to be imposed costs, still having regard to the fact that none among them have been impleaded in their personal capacity, I refrain myself from passing such orders.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/