Karnataka High Court
Sri M S Kottureshwara vs The Registrar (Evaluation) on 4 September, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.45506/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. M.S. Kottureshwara,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Sri. M.T. Somashekariah,
No.501/502-2, GF2,
'Sampurna Apartments',
4th Main Road, Brindavannagar,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. N.R. Nagaraj, Advocate)
And
1. The Registrar (Evaluation),
Bengaluru University,
Natural Science Block,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Assistant Registrar (Evaluation),
Bengaluru University,
Natural Science Block,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
... Respondents
(By Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
blacklisting the petitioner from all the examination related
works for three years with effect from 04.06.2013 vide
Annexure - J.
This petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner had approached this Court in writ petition No.13748/2008 in which he had sought for quashing the notification dated 26.08.2008 as per Annexure-E in which petitioner produced the resolution of the 76th Syndicate at its meeting held on 02.08.2018 resolving to blacklist him from all examination related works for three years, in view of the erratic evaluation of eight answer scripts pertaining to programming C++ of III Sem. BCA Degree examination of November/ December 2007.
2. This Court by order dated 21.06.2012 allowed the writ petition and quashed Annexure-E blacklisting him from 3 examination work and directed the University to pass an order in accordance with law. Hence show cause notice issued on 31.08.2011 directing him to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against him as per the University Rules.
3. As per the examination manual, if the reviewer finds any discrepancies and erratic evaluation made by the valuer, the reviewer should report the same in writing to the custodian or Registrar (Evaluation) immediately. However he did not do it, this shows he had committed negligence of the examination work, for which detailed reply was given on 12.09.2012 and explained the situation and stated that there was no erratic valuation. After acknowledging the said answer to the show cause notice, an order of proceedings passed on 30/31.17.2013 again black listing him for all the examination related works for three years with effect from 04.06.2013. Hence petitioner has filed the present petition. 4
4. The grounds urged and submission made by the petitioner are that he had not been assigned job of valuation but appointed as a reviewer for the answer scripts pertaining to C++ subject examination held during November - December 2007. As per regulations he was supposed to review the valuation made by the valuer and he did it, he has completely attended the examination. When petitioner was back to his work he found that some of eight of his own students have failed in several subjects. Eight students approached the petitioner along with Xerox copies of answer scripts obtained from the University, in which valuation of scripts had not been done properly and they have expected much more marks. The answers written by the students as found in copies of answer scripts, it was found that the valuation made by the valuers had been grossly erratic and marks awarded to each of the students were found to be very much deficient than they were entitled for the answers. In photo copies he has given his own marks that was converted to tabular column which is produced before this Court. As per 5 tablular column which was produced by his students reveals that their expected marks for that answer script 8 numbers, it is more than what has been awarded. This tabular column was taken by the students to the Registrar to award correct marks.
5. After receiving the said answer script by the students, the petitioner was summoned to the University and he was made to give a letter. Therefore show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to give explanation. He replied the same elaborately that he never valued any answer scripts as valuer, but he worked as a reviewer wherein he reviewed the valuation already made by the valuer to the extent of only 15% of the papers valued by the primary valuer. The error committed by the primary valuer in the answer scripts of eight students was pointed out, for which University blacklisted petitioner from all the examination related works for three consequent period and debarred from participating in any examination work. The submission of the 6 petitioner is that the University did not apply its mind, they have treated as if reviewer has reviewed eight question papers of his own students.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that impugned notice issued blacklisting him for all the examination related works for three years is just and sought dismiss the writ petition.
7. Heard both the learned counsel. The show cause notice states that he has erratically reviewed eight answer scripts. The reply states that petitioner has not erratically reviewed eight answer scripts and eight students answer scripts are produced before this Court at Annexure-E. Valuer has given marks on his own assessment, photo copies obtained by the University, which has been termed by University as if the petitioner has not reviewed these eight students answer scripts. Thus it could be so that the University has blunderly issued show cause notice to the petitioner for reply for the said irregularities. 7
8. Petitioner has stated that the students for securing lesser marks to the answer scripts, which were evaluated by the valuer. Then petitioner has reviewed the same for which the University issued show cause notice to the petitioner.
Accordingly notification dated 04.06.2013 vide Annexure-J blacklisting the petitioner from all the examination related works for three years is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LL