Master Manoj. N vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Master Manoj. N vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2018

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

                         BEFORE:

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

        WRIT PETITION No.36661/2017 (EDN - RES)

BETWEEN:

MASTER MANOJ.N
S/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT No.30, 2ND CROSS
KHB MAIN ROAD
KAVALBYRASANDRA
NEW LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560032.                         ... PETITIONER


          [BY SRI K.CHANDRASHEKAR ACHAR, ADV.]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY
       TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
       M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     VISHWESHRAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL
       UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI
       JNANA SANGAMA
       MACHHE, BELAGAVI-590018
       REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

3.     ST. JOSEPH ENGINEERING COLLEGE
       VAMANJOOR POST
                                    2



        MANGALORE TALUK
        DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575028
        REP. BY PRINCIPAL.               ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1; SRI SANTHOSH S.
         NAGARALE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R-2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT TO
THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE
PETITIONER FOR REVALUATION OF SUBJECT-PROGRAMMING
IN Compensation AND DATE STRUCTURES IN 1ST SEMESTER
BATCHELOR OF ENGINEERING COURSE DECEMBER 2016
JANUARY 2017 EXAMINATION ANSWER PAPERS AS PER
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

Petitioner is an engineering student. He was admitted to 3rd respondent - Engineering College in the academic year 2016-17 to prosecute his Engineering Degree under the 2nd respondent - University. The petitioner interalia, appeared in his subject - Programming in C and Data Structures in the 1st year semesters. He did not clear the said examination. Therefore, he sought for revaluation of the answer script in the said subject. According to the petitioner, even after revaluation, he has not cleared the said 3 examination. Therefore, petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents for a further evaluation of answer scripts in the said Programming in 'C' and Data Structures.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has answered the questions in a befitting manner but he was disappointed by being awarded only 22 out of 80 marks. As a result, he has not been able to clear the said paper. He further submits that on getting the answer scripts revalued from one of his teachers and on his personal evaluation, he finds that he is entitled to get more marks and that he expects to pass the said subject. In the circumstances, petitioner's counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent - University to re-evaluate petitioner's answer scripts in the said subject - Programming in C and Data Structures, so 4 that the petitioner could have an opportunity to clear the said subject.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent - University as well as learned Additional Government Advocate who appeared on advance notice, submits that the Rules provide only for one revaluation and if the marks are enhanced beyond 15%, then the benefit of the said marks are awarded to the student. But if there is no real change in the marks or if the marks awarded in the revaluation is less, then the marks obtained by the student in the first instance would be retained. He submits that in terms of Regulations Governing Issue of Soft Copy and Revaluation of Answer Scripts 2013, there is no scope for multiple revaluations of the answer scripts. He further submits that this Court may not interfere in the matter as the Rules do not provide for multiple evaluation of answer scripts. 5

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, I find that the petitioner has already had the benefit of revaluation, as per the Regulations Governing Issue of Soft Copy and Revaluation of Answer Scripts 2013, issued by the Respondent - University. The manner in which the award of marks after revaluation is done is as prescribed in the Rules. In the instant case, it is noted that if revaluation marks is lesser, than the original marks, the latter would be retained. Therefore, the original marks have been retained in the instant case as the petitioner has not cleared the said subject, despite revaluation. There is no scope for further evaluation, as the said Rules do not provide for the same. In the circumstances, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the respondent No.2 for further revaluation of the answer scripts which would be contrary to the 6 Regulations, as no direction could be issued to the University to disobey its own Regulation.

5. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

6. In view of the dismissal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2017 also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NC

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court