Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel vs The Registrar, Rani Durgawati ... on 22 July, 2013
Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel Vs. Registrar, RDVV
W. P. No :: 11054/2013
22.07.2013.
Shri Vasant Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent.
Petitioner is a student of B.A.L.L.B. (Honours), course in Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. He appeared in the second semester examination, which was conducted in the year 2011 and the dispute in this petition pertains to allocation of marks for the subject of Political Science and also aggregate in the entire examination. It seems that in the subject of Political Science petitioner was shown to have received 28 marks and declared as failed. Petitioner represented and questioned the manner in which his answer-sheet for the subject was valued.
Be it as it may be. When petitioner was not satisfied with the action taken by the university, matter came to this court in a writ petition, being W.P. No.590/2013 and on 15.1.2013 the writ petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court when it was informed to this Court that the 5th Semester Examination for the course in question is to commence on 17.1.2013 and, therefore, the answer-sheet for the subject of political science of the second semester should be revalued immediately. Taking note of submissions made by the parties, represented by their counsel, the following directions were issued by this Court :
"Learned counsel for the University states that the petitioner's marks will be re-valued in accordance 2 with Clause 6 of the (Revised) Ordinance 92 framed by the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya by the evening of 16.1.2013.
In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is directed that the petitioner's marks will be re-valuated in accordance with Clause 6 of the (Revised) Ordinance 92 framed by the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya by 16.1.2013 and if the petitioner is found to have passed in the 2nd Semester, then he will be permitted to appear in the 5th Semester examination commencing on 17.1.2013.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dispose of with the aforesaid direction.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Bobde) (K.K. Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge"
After the orders were passed on 15.1.2013, as reproduced hereinabove, petitioner submitted an application to the university on 16.1.2013 in the morning and on 16.01.2013 itself in the second part of the day a communication was made to the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 indicating the result of revaluation, by saying that there is no change in the final outcome.
Shri Vasant Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the requirement of rule, as contemplated in the Ordinance for Revaluation and Scrutiny of Answer-book Annexure P-11 and points out that rule 7 contemplates a detailed procedure for revaluation, which warrants sending of answer-sheet for revaluation to two examiners, other than the one who initially valued it and further stipulation of the rule is 3 that these two examiners shall be from a place outside the jurisdiction of the University. That apart, various other conditions are stipulated in the rule. He took us through the answer-sheet received by him under R.T.I. Act Annexure P-10 and points out that requirement of rule have not been complied with and merely because an order was passed by this Court, to complete the formalities, revaluation has been done in a hurried manner, contrary to the rules, therefore, prayer is made that answer sheet should be properly revalued.
Even though by filing a reply, learned counsel for the respondent justify this action and during the course of hearing Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel, vehemently argues that once revaluation is done, no further revaluation is permissible.
But on taking note of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, we are not satisfied with the revaluation done.
When the matter was taken up by the Division Bench on 15.1.2013, the counsel for the University and the counsel for petitioner were heard and direction issued was to get the answer-sheet revalued in accordance to requirement of Ordinance. The ordinance contemplates a provision for revaluation and the university was expected to conduct the revaluation in accordance to the requirement of the rule, however, the revaluation done and the report of revaluation Annexure P-5 does show that two valuers had revalued the 4 answer-sheet, particulars of examiners who revalued the answer-sheet and the manner in which the revaluation was done is not evident.
The answer-sheet given to petitioner under R.T.I. Act vide Annexure P-10 does not show that revaluation has been done, whether separate marks were alloted by the valuers for each question separately. As there is nothing to show that revaluation was done by the two valuers properly, nor is their anything to show that the valuers were from a place outside the jurisdiction of the University, and when the entire revaluation took place on a single day i.e. on 16.1.2013 within few hours, we are of the considered view that proper revaluation has not been done.
Taking note of all these circumstances, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met, if we direct for the answer-sheets to be revalued again in accordance with requirement of law.
Even though Shri N.S. Ruprah submits that revaluation has already been undertaken and there being no change in the marks obtained, there is no further provisions for revaluation, but once it is found by us that statutory provisions contemplated for revaluation are not complied with and when prima facie we found the revaluation in accordance to requirement of rule is not done, we have no hesitation in directing for revaluation 5 again, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular case, accordingly, we issue the following directions :
The answer-sheet for the subject in question i.e. political science for the second semester, B.A.L.L.B. Examination of petitioner be sent to 2 valuers, who are stationed outside the university in question. After getting the answer-sheet revalued, the same be produced before this Court in a sealed cover along with report of the revaluation.
The entire action in this regard be undertaken and report submitted on or before 27.8.2013.
List the matter for further orders on 27.8.2013.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT. VIMLA JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss/-