Bombay High Court
Prem Kisanchand Pahuja And Others vs The University Of Mumbai on 28 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)BOMCR273
Author: A.Y. Sakhare
Bench: A.Y. Sakhare
ORDER A.Y. Sakhare, J.
1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for directions against the respondent-University to retain petitioner's original mark in subjects General Surgery No. 1 and General Surgery No. 2 or to refer answer-books of the said subjects to a third Examiner for second revaluation.
2. The petitioner secured 59 marks out of 100 marks in General Surgery No. 1 and 65 marks out of 100 marks in General Surgery No. 2 in third year M.B.B.S. Examination held by the respondent. The petitioner was expecting more marks, therefore, he applied for verification as well as for revaluation by his application dated 21-8-1996. On revaluation, the petitioner was awarded 44 marks in General Surgery No. 1 and 54 marks in General Surgery No. 2. Thus, petitioner's original marks and marks secured after revaluation are as under :
Subject Total Marks Marks secured before revaluation Marks secured after revaluation
1. Gen. Surgery-1 100 059 044
2. Gen. Surgery-2 100 065 054
3. By present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondent University to retain the petitioner's original marks or to send the petitioner's answer-books in the aforesaid two subjects for re-revaluation to third Examiner. The petitioner has placed reliance upon Clause 9 of Ordinance No. 237-A issued by the respondent University.
4. The petitioner's first submission that after revaluation his original marks cannot be reduced or varied to his detriment is of no substance. While applying for revaluation, in accordance with Clause-11 of Ordinance 237-A, the petitioner has given written undertaking that result of revaluation of his answer-books shall be binding upon him and that he shall accept revised marks assigned to his papers as a result of revaluation. Thus, result of revaluation is binding upon the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for revaluation of his marks in accordance with Ordinance 237-A. After revaluation, the marks can be varied to the detriment of student seeking revaluation under the said Ordinance. There is no bar. Division Bench of this Court in Lalit Baltabhdas Taori v. Nagpur University, Nagpur & others, , while considering similar provision has observed that revaluation is a part of examination and is a fresh appraisal of the performance of the student by other examiner. In case the marks are increased as a result of revaluation, the increase is binding on the University which is obliged to vary result on that basis. Similarly, when the marks are varied to the detriment of student the same will be binding on student. In view of this decision also, the petitioner's submission that after revaluation his marks cannot be varied to his detriment and that the University be directed to retain his original marks will have to be rejected.
5. As far as the petitioner's second submission that under Clause 9 of Ordinance 237-A, the respondent - University be directed to refer his answer-books to third Examiner is concerned, in our judgment, benefit of the said Clause cannot be extended to the petitioner herein. As per Clause 9 of this Ordinance if the difference between the marks originally obtained and marks obtained after revaluation exceed 20% of the marks assigned to that paper (in present case 100) then only Vice-Chancellor is authorised to refer the papers for second revaluation. Thus, in case of decrease or increase of marks, if the difference exceeds 20% of the marks assigned to that paper then only papers can be sent for second revaluation. In the present case, difference between the originally obtained marks and marks obtained after revaluation is less than 20% of the marks assigned to that paper. This being so, benefit of Clause-9 of this Ordinance cannot be extended to the petitioner herein. The validity of this Clause is upheld by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1330 of 1997 decided on 11-9-1997. Thus, the petitioner's second submission that the petitioner's aforesaid two papers be sent for second revaluation to third Examiner cannot be accepted.
6. In the result, writ petition to stand dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.