Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Lochan Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2012
1.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010
Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012
Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G. for the respondents.
This order shall decide W.P. 13900 of 2011 [Anjali Jatav vs. State of M.P. & others], W.P.13275 of 2011 [Rajeev Lochan Dwivedi and others vs. State of M.P. and others] and W.P. 13611 of 2011 [Neelam vs. State of M.P. & ors]. For the convenience facts are taken from W.P. 13275 of 2011. However, it will be pertinent to mention that the facts of all the petitions are identical and can be decided by a common order. The petitioners were the students of M.B.B.S. 1st year professional course in which they could not clear the 1st year course. The petitioners applied for revaluation and after the revaluation their marks were increased and they were declared successful in 1st year professional course and thereafter they were permitted to prosecute their studies. In 2nd Year M.B.B.S. Professional course,. As there were certain complaints in respect of the revaluation, the respondent University conducted an euquiry and found that the answer scripts of the petitioners were never sent for the revaluation and in fact these were never revalued by the valuers. Some of the valuers were not found at the place where the answer scripts were allegedly sent. In some cases without being revalued, by forged signatures of the valuer, the marks were increased. In this regard, it will be pertinent to mention to refer para 6 to 13 of the return filed by the University, which reads thus :-
6. That, the answering respondent respectfully submits that the enquiry committee has inquired into various aspects of the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya including the irregularities in the
2.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 matter of valuation and revaluation. It is submitted that part 10 of the enquiry report pertains to revaluation notification dated 12.2.2011 No.4165. The answer sheets of the notification dated 12.2.2011 were again reexamined by the committee and huge variation was found. In point No. 1.4 of Part 10 of the report it has been observed by the Enquiry Committee that the answer-sheet of the notification dated 12.2.2011 were not in fact revaluated and on account of extraneous reasons the marks were increased. While observing various irregularities the enquiry committee in Part 11 of its report made various recommendations and the recommendation No.7 pertains to revaluation notification No.415 dated 12.2.2011 which says that the said revaluation notification should be cancelled and all answer-sheets should be again revaluated. A copy of the entire enquiry report is being filed herewith as Annexure R-4/
7. The answering respondent further respectfully submits that the petitioner No.1 Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi was awarded compartment in Biochemistry subject of MBBS First professional examination which was conducted in August, 2011. In Biochemistry subject theory paper consists of three parts, viz. Theory I, theory II and internal assessment. For theory paper total 120 marks are allocated and minimum passing marks out of 120 is
60. Theory I and II papers consist of 50 marks each and internal assessment is of 20 marks. It is submitted that Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi obtained 21 marks in theory I and 18 marks in theory II. He obtained 12 marks in internal assessment of theory. The total marks in theory obtained by him is51 out of 120 whereas the passing marks are 60. Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi declared pass in revaluation and his marks were increased from 21 to 27 in theory I and 18 to 21 in theory II. In place of total marks of 51 in revaluation he obtained 64 marks. This is how there has been increase of 13 marks during revaluation. The revaluation has to be conducted in accordance with ordinance No.71 of the University and the answer sheet is required to be sent for valuation to two examiners in the case of Rajiv
3.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 Lochan Dwivedi. The Biochemistry I paper was sent for revaluation to Mehnaz Khan, Assistant Professor RKDF College of Nursing, Bhopal who has awarded 27 marks. The same answer sheet was also sent to second examiner, namely Pooja Agrawal, Assistant Professor RKDF College, Bhopal who has awarded 27 marks. The second paper of Biochemistry was also sent for revaluation to two examiners, viz, Mehnaz Khan and Pooja Agrawal. Both the examiners have awarded 25 marks in first paper. It is submitted that this is how in first paper of Biochemistry marks were increased from 21 to 27 and similarly in second paper marks were increased from 18 to 25. As per the report of enquiry committee Mehnaz Khan has stated that 7 answer- sheets of Biochemistry papers 1 and 2 were brought to her of first year MBBS examination. She also stated that the said answer-sheets were brought to her by one Mr. Tiwari from Jabalpur and he dictated each and every figure and she did not see the actual copy of the concerned candidate and had just written the marks in front of question numbers as dictated by Mr. Tiwari.
8. It is submitted that the second examiner/valuer Pooja Agrawal was not found at Bhopalo as was informed to the enquiry committee that after getting married she shifted to Gwalior and could not be contacted by the enquiry committee.
9. That, the another candidate Praveen Vyas has obtained 23 marks in theory 1 and 22 marks in theory Ii of the Biochemistry subject. He was also awarded compartment in Physiology as well as Bhiochemistry. However, in revaluation in place of 22 marks in Biochemistry he obtained 28 marks. It is submitted that while increasing six marks in Biochemistry II subject he was awarded total 63 marks in place o 57 in Biochemistry theory. Whe he was awarded 63 marks, i.e. higher than the passing marks in Biochemistry Theory, therefore, he became entitled for grace marks in Physiology subject and accordingly his result was changed in compartment in Physiology and Biochemistry to successful candidate. It is submitted that his roll number was 2171 and in second paper of Biochemistry he was
4.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 awarded 28 marks by Mehnaz Khan and 28 marks by Pooja Agrawal as has been stated above that Mehnaz Khan has specifically stated that she did not value the answer script; therefore, the revaluation of this candidate also suffers from material illegality and has rightly been decided to be cancelled.
9. Another candidate Ankur Mishra who is petitioner No.5 of the instant writ petition was awarded 23 marks in Theory I and 16 marks in theory II. The total marks obtained by him are 51 whereas the passing marks are 60 in Biochemistry subject. Therefore, he was awarded compartment in Biochemistry subject. It is submitted that the original marks of Ankur Mishra in Theory First and Biochemistry subject were increased from 23 to 32 and in second paper were increased from 16 to 26. The total marks of this candidate were increased from 51 to 70 during revaluation. The roll number of this candidate is 2119 and the answer-sheet of this candidate of theory I were sent for revaluation to the aforesaid two examiners and they have awarded in theory I 32 and 31 marks respectively (Mehnaz Khan had awarded 32 and Pooja Agrawal had awarded 31). The answer-sheet of theory Ii were also sent for revaluation to aforesaid two examiners and both of them, viz., Mehnaz Khan and Pooja Agrawal have awarded him 26 and 25 marks respectively. As has been stated above the revaluation of this candidate also suffers from material illegality for the reasons that Mehnaz Khan did not value the answer script and has filled up the marks as per the dictate of one Mr. Tiwari.
10. Another candidate Raj Bahadur Tiwari, who is petitioner No.6 and his roll number is 2180 was initially awarded 23 marks in theory I and 14 marks in theory II. He was awarded compartment in Biochemistry subject as his total marks were 49 out of 120; whereas passing maris are 60. It is submitted that during revaluation marks of this candidate were increased from 23 to 33 in theory I and 14 to 17 in theory II. The total marks in theory subject were increased from 49 to 62. This is how there is increase of 13 marks in revaluation. It is submitted that Mehnaz Khan had awarded him 33
5.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 marks in theory I being first examiner and Pooja Agrawal awarded him 32 marks in theory I being second examiner. In theory II Mehnaz Khan awarded him 30 marks being first examiner and Pooja Agrawal awarded him 26 marks being second Examiner. It is submitted that as apparent from the averments of the preceding paragraphs that the revaluation of this candidate by Mehnaz Khan and Pooja Agrawal suffers from material illegality and hence the same has rightly been decided to be cancelled.
11. That, the petitioner No.3 Shamim Ahmed Ansari has obtained 25 marks in Physiology theory I and 17 marks in Physiology theory II. It is submitted that the total marks obtained by this candidate were 54 out of 120; whereas, the passing marks were 60. On account of the aforesaid reasons this candidate was awarded compartment in Physiology and Anatomy. The Roll number of this candidate is 2202. During revaluation the marks of this candidate were increased from 17 to 23 in Physiology theory II paper. The total marks were also increased from 54 to 60 out of 120 and on account of the said increase the result was substantially changed from fail to pass in Physiology subject. As per the enquiry report the answer sheet of Physiology theory II of this candidate was sent for valuation to two examiners, viz. Dr. S.Rampaliwar, Assistant Professor Physiology, Medical College, Rewa and to Dr. Milind Shiralkar, Medical College, Rewa. Both of them have awarded 23 marks each to this candidate in Physiology theory II paper. Dr. S. Rampaliwar has declined to value the answer sheet of this candidate and has given the categorical statement that the answer sheets which were brought to him including the answer sheets of the petitioner was not valued by him. It is submitted that Dr. Milind Shiralkar has also declined the revaluation of the said candidate. The statement of Dr. S. Rampaliwal and Dr. Milind Shiralkar are already on record alongwith enquiry committee report. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid fact the revaluation of this candidate also suffers from material illegality and the same has
6.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 rightly been decided to be cancelled.
12. Petitioner no.4 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav was awarded 19 marks in Physiology theory I and 25 marks in Physiology theory II. The total marks obtained by this candidate are 54 out of 120 and on account of the same he was awarded compartment in Physiology. During revaluation this candidate obtained 26 marks in Physiology I in place 19 and 32 marks in Physiology II in place of 25. Total marks were increased from 54 to 68 out of 120 and the result of this candidate was substantially changed and he was declared pass in place of compartment in Physiology. This candidate was awarded 25 marks in theory I of Physiology by Dr. Milind Shiralkar and 27 marks by Dr. S. Rampaliwar during revaluation. In theory II of Physiology this candidate was awarded 31 marks by Dr. Milind Shiralkar and 32 marks by Dr. S. Rampaliwal. It is submitted that as both the examiners have categorically stated that they did not value the answer scripts of this candidate including the other candidates, therefore, the revaluation of this candidate also suffers from material illegality and same has rightly been decided to be cancelled.
13. That, the petitioner No.7 Richa Siddharth was awarded 22 marks in Anatomy theory I and 18 marks in Anatomy II. She was awarded total 52 marks out of 120 whereas the passing marks were
60. On account of the same she was declare compartment in Anatomy. It is submited that during revaluation the marks of this candidate were increased in Anatomy II paper and she was awarded 25 marks in place of 18 in Anatomy II. It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid increase the total marks became 59 inplace of 52, and therefore the result of this candidate was substantially changed and in place of fail she was declared pass by grace marks. The roll number of this candidate is 2191. Her answer sheet has been allegedly valued by Dr. Meghna Mishra, Assistant Professor, Anatomy, Medical College, Rewa and Dr. Meghna Mishra, allegedly awarded 25 marks being first valuer in second paper of Anatomy and Dr. D.C. Naik Professor and Head of the Department
7.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 Anatomy, Medical College, Rewa has also allegedly awarded him 25 marks being second valuer . It is submitted that Dr. Meghna Mishra and Dr. D.C. Nayak both have categorically stated that they did not value the answer script of this candidate and accordingly the result of revaluation of this candidate also suffers from material illegality and hence the same has rightly been decided to be cancelled.
The case of the petitioners before this Court is that once the petitioners were declared pass after revaluation before cancellation of the result of the revaluation, the petitioners ought to have been extended an opportunity of hearing and without extending an opportunity of hearing, after issuance of show cause notice, their result of declaring passed after revaluation could not have been cancelled.
Reliance is placed by the petitioners to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dadan Ram and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2007) 13 SCC 583] and submitted that the order Annexure P-4 dated 26.7.2011 by which the result of the petitioner for revaluation was cancelled may be quashed.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the University in the resolution dated 16.6.2011 while considering Item No.7 specifically decided for revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners and to declare the result. As the answer scripts were seized by the Police in a criminal case so the aforesaid answer scripts could not be revalued. However, within a period of to weeks from today the answer scripts shall be revalued and the revised result of the petitioners will be declared.
So far as the contention of the petitioners that before
8.....
W.P. No. 13275 of 2010Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 cancellation of the result of the petitioners after revaluation, petitioners were entitled for show cause notice and opportunity of hearing is concerned, in a normal situation, the aforesaid contention could have been appreciated but in the present case when after an enquiry it is found that without revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners, the result of the petitioners was changed, marks were increased and they were declared passed. This was done by the University after thorough enquiry in the matter and at present, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that such an enquiry may be set aside and the petitioners' result of revaluation may be maintained. When the University after conduction of through enquiry recorded a finding that the answer scripts of the petitioners were never sent for revaluation marks were increased then, it was a case where no opportunity of hearing was required. However, the University has already taken lenient view and after cancellation of the result, the University has directed for revaluation of the answer scripts which decision appears to be just and proper. However, a long time is elapsed after 16.6.2011, we find it appropriate to direct the University to get revalued the answer scripts of the petitioners within a period of two weeks, as prayed by Shri Kaurav, and to declare the result after revaluation. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of finally with the following directions:-
1. The respondent University is directed to get revalued all the answer scripts in question of the petitioners for which the petitioners had made prayer for revaluation and to declare the result of the petitioners within a period of two
9.....W.P. No. 13275 of 2010
Rajeev Lochan and others State of M.P. & others.
24.01.2012 weeks after revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners.
2. If the petitioners' result is changed as per the revaluation, and they are declared as successful, the petitioners shall be permitted to prosecute their studies in the higher classes but in case the result remains unchanged, the petitioners shall be free to assail the aforesaid, before the appropriate forum or may prosecute their studies as per the directions of the University.
C.C. As per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
vj