Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sandeep Singh & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 8 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4172 / 2018
1. Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, Resident of House No.34, Gali No.02, Vashudev Nagar,
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
2. Gurpreet Kaur Gill, W/o Harpreet Singh Sohal, Aged About 35
Years, Resident of 5-A-16, Jawahar Nagar, Near City Hospital,
Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3727 / 2018
1. Bikkar Singh S/o Kartar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
of Village Agal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala (Punjab).
2. Chanpereet Singh S/o Karnail Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 1, Sirsa- 12055 (Haryana).
3. Anoop Autar Singh Sandhu S/o Santokh Pal Singh, Sandhu,
Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Village Kalomajra, PO
Jhansla, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab).
4. Harjit Singh S/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
of Village Gangroul, PO Bhankher, District & Tehsil Patiala
(Punjab).
5. Gurpeet Singh S/o Bhinder Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident of Village Mallehwal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala
(Punjab).
6. Rajeev Kumar S/o Atma Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident
of Near Isha Purak Gurudwara, Link Road, Mansa (Punjab).
7. Yashpal Shal S/o Surinder Kumar, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident of House No. BN 540, New Absti Pandusar, Nabha,
District Patiala (Punjab).
8. Sahil Kumar S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident of House No. B 229, Street No. 3, Civil Line, Phase-
1, Near BDPO Office, Fazilka, District Falika, Punjab.
9. Gurtej Singh S/o Pritam Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of VPO Dhudi, District Faridkot Punjab.
(2 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
10. Karanjit Kumar S/o Prem Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident of Mai Godri Colony, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot
(Punjab).
11. Lakhanjeet Pal S/o Vinod Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, Resident of VPO Alamwala, Tehsil Malout, District
Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
12. Rajinder Singh S/o Kushhal Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 16, Dera Bhag Singh Cheeka, Tehsil
Gwhla, District Kaithal (Haryana).
13. Palwinder Kumar S/o Nirmal Kumar, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident of PD Dhokowal, Mana, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
14. Harpinder Kaur D/o Harnek Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident of Friends Colony Sanour, Tehsil & District Patiala
(Punjab).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3889 / 2018
1. Kavita Rani D/o Shri Jai Lal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste
Jat, Resident of Ward No. 2 VPO Jasana Tehsil Nohar District
Hanumangarh.
2. Rakesh S/o Shri Dalip Kumar, By Caste Jat, Resident of Ward
No. 1, VPO Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
2. The Examination Controller, Maharaja Ganga Singh University,
Bikaner
----Respondents
(4) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4174 / 2018
1. Mithun Agarwal S/o Anant Lal Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Laxmi Nath Ji Mandir Road, Kalalo-Ki Gali,
Bikaner, (Rajasthan).
(3 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
2. Ram Pareek S/o Daulal Pareek, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of Jasusar Gatab Ke Bahar Street, Behind New
Saran Petrol Pump, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. Inder Chand Verma S/o Gangaram Verma, Aged About 38
Years, Resident of Goswami Chowk, Kumharon-Ka-Mohalla,
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Nemanath Bhati S/o Jagannath Bhati, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of 4-D-139, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner,
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(5) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4176 / 2018
1. Paras Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of VPO Gehri Devi Nagar, District Bathinda (Punjab).
2. Angrej Singh S/o Ranjit Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
of House No. 21959, St. No. 3, Dhobiana Road, Bathinda
(Punjab)
3. Ravinder Kumar S/o Shri Shinder Pal, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 8, Near Durga Mandir, Goniana Mandi,
District Bathinda (Punjab)
4. Sandeep Kumar Verma S/o Roshan Lal Verma, Aged About 43
Years, Resident of House No. 1666, Zargran Street, Fazilka
(Punjab).
5. Karamjit Kumar S/o Shri Prem Kumar, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of House No. 35, Ward No. 20, Shri Guru Ravidas
Nagar, Malout, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib (Punjab).
6. Ruchika Goklaney D/o Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Aged About
33 Years, Resident of House No. 38, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.
7. Ritu Rani D/o Vedpal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of VPO
Kharak Ramji, District Jind (Haryana).
8. Vishal Goyal S/o Durga Dass, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
of House No. 44-C, Rattan Nagar, Tripuri Town, Patiala
(Punjab)
9. Karnail Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of VPO Mahalam, Tehsil & District Ferozpur (Punjab)
(4 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
10. Satish Sharma S/o Shri Surjit Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident of House No. 133, VPO Bazidpur, Ferozpur (Punjab).
11. Satnam Singh S/o Kartara Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of House No. 590, Shekwal Basti, Jodhewal,
Ludhiana (Punjab).
12. Avtar Singh S/o Inder Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident
of St. No. 3, Near Singh Sabha Gurudawara, Gobind Nagri,
Ferozpur (Punjab)
13. Jatinder Singh S/o Janak Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of Village Rourgarh, PO Lang, (Punjab).
14. Jaimal Singh S/o Kulwant Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident of Ganna Pind, District Jalandhar (Punjab)
15. Ramesh Kumar Kaira S/o Gian Chand Kaira, Aged About 43
Years, Resident of House No. B-XXI-2874, Street No. 6-1/2,
Radha Swami Gill Road, Chet Singh Nagar, Ludhiana
(Punjab).
16. Rajesh Goyal S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Resident of B-
III/321, Baba Ram Kohli Street, Rampura Pind, District
Bathinda (Punjab).
17. Amandeep Narang S/o Hans Raj Narang, Aged About 43
Years, Resident of House No. 555, St. No. 14, Old Bishan
Nagar, Patiala (Punjab).
18. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Des Raj, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident of House No. 743/20, Gali No. 7, Guru Nanak Dev
Nagar, Patiala (Punjab).
19. Jagsir Singh S/o Nirmal Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
of Moga Road, Mhanta Wali Gali, Baghapurana, District Moga
(Punjab).
20. Rahul Gupta S/o Rajinder Kumar Gupta, Aged About 24
Years, Resident of Bathinda Road, St. No. 2, Taran Tarn Nasar,
Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab).
21. Gurdeep Singh S/o Naurang Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Village Alohram Khurd, Nabha (Punjab).
22. Paras Monga S/o Rakesh Kumar Monga, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 2, Krishna Mandir, Street Guruharsahai
(Punjab).
23. Chupinder Pal Kaur D/o Sukchain Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident of Moden Town, Phase-1, LIG-133, Bhatinda
(Punjab).
24. Vikram Singh S/o Chandi Ram, Aged About 30 Years, VPO-
Kandela Dist - Jind (Haryana)
----Petitioners
(5 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(6) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4234 / 2018
1. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Shrawan Kumar, aged about 25 years,
resident of 4 MN WN Tehsil Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
2. Sunny Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Kumar, aged about 28 years,
resident of Ward No.44, Kumhar Mohalla, Sriganganagar.
3. Abhishek Fagoria S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, aged about 24 years,
resident of Gali No.2, Ward No.9, Shakti Nagar,
Sriganganagar.
4. Anish Kumar S/o Sh. Ramswaroop, aged about 24 years,
resident of G 75 Civil Lines Sriganganagar.
5. Mangat Ram S/o Sh. Seeta Ram, aged about 41 years,
resident of village Bhagasar Chak Maharaj Ka Tehsil
Sardulshahar Dist. Sriganganagar.
6. Laljeet Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, aged about 23 years,
resident of Village Bhujwala Tehsil Srikaranpur Dist.
Sriganganagar.
7. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Laxman Ram, aged about 28 years,
resident of Ward No.10, 3 STR Tehsil Gharsana Dist.
Sriganganagar.
8. Surja Ram S/o Sh. Fusa Ram, aged about 24 years, resident
of VPO Sangrana (23 RB) Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Dist.
Sriganganagar.
9. Banta Ram S/o Sh. Ramlal, aged about 24 years, resident of
VPO Panditawali Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.
10. Bhupendra S/o Sh. Muni Ram, aged about 28 years, resident
of Ward No.9, Behind Ramdev temple Raisinghnagar, Dist.
Sriganganagar.
11. Ankit Godara S/o Sh. Omprakash, aged about 26 years,
resident of Ward No.6, 54 LNP Tehsil Padampur Dist.
Sriganganagar.
12. Reeta Rani D/o Sh. Chhindra Singh, aged about 24 years,
resident of Ward No.2, 2 PSD-B Rawla Dist Sriganganagar.
(6 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
13. Dinesh Vishnoi S/o Sh. Gangaram, aged about 25 years,
resident of 6 No. Road, Chaudhar School, near CRR School,
Bikaner.
14. Dule Ram S/o Sh. Rupa Ram, aged about 27 years, resident
of village 24 F PO 25 F Gulabewala Tehsil Srikaranpur Dist.
Sriganganagar.
15. Meena D/o Sh. Dulichand, aged about 31 years, resident of
H.No.902, Chawla Chok, Purani Abadi Sriganganagar.
16. Ashutosh Kataria S/o Sh. Surendra Kumar, aged about 27
years, resident of Ward No.7, 74 C Block Tehsil Srikaranpur,
dist. Sriganganagar.
17. Gagandeep Singh S/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh, aged about 25
years, resident of VPO Hindumalkot Dist. Sriganganagar.
18. Baljinder Singh Saini S/o Sh. Jagmohan Singh, aged about 23
years, resident of H.No.430, ward No.14, near Sabji Mandi,
Purani Abadi Dist. Sriganganagar.
19. Jagdish Prasad S/o Sh. Sitaram, aged about 34 years,
resident of 350 Ward No.07, VPO Poharaka Dist.
Hanumangarh.
20. Savita D/o sh. Omprakash, aged about 30 R/o H.No.902
Ward No.13 Purani Abadi Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(7) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4240 / 2018
1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Bania Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident of Main Bajar Jind, Haryana.
2. Munish Bansal S/o Shri Harindra Banshal, Aged About 28
Years, Resident of House No. 553, Block No. 02, Lakkar
Mandi, Ludhiyana (Punjab).
3. Arvil S/o Shri Baldev Rai, Aged About 27 Years, Resident of
Near Post Office, Jalalabad (west) Dist Fazilka
4. Rajat Mishra S/o Shri Dev Shankar Mishra, Aged About 27
Years, Resident of Hanuman Gali, Mishra Mohalla, Near Main
Bazar, Jind (Haryana).
----Petitioners
(7 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(8) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4424 / 2018
1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 28 Years, By
Caste Bishnoi, R/o 28 Shopping Complex Sector No.1,
Jawahar Nagar, Opposite Tehsil Campus, Distt. Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
2. Sagar Charaya S/o Naresh Kumar Charaya, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste Arora, R/o 165 "P" Block, Distt. Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
3. Sandeep Kumar S/o Bhagat Ram, Aged About 28 Years, By
Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 6, Jakhar Anwali, The. Pilibanga Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(9) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4679 / 2018
Dharamveer Dudeja S/o Khemchand Dudeja, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste Arora R/o 153 G Block, Distt. Sri Ganganagar
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner through its
Registrar.
----Respondents
(8 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
(10) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4722 / 2018
1. Sandeep Singh S/o Sh. Boota, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
of Jimalke Fazilka Punjab.
2. Hitesh Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident of W-3 New Maneli Gharsana Dist. Ganganagar.
3. Vikas Kumar S/o Sh. Hariram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident
of Ward No. 14, Ellenabad Sirsa, Haryana.
4. Khushwinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurlabh Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident of Panni Wala Monka Resu Jodha (281) Teh-
Resu Jodha Dist. Sirsa, Haryana.
5. Manuj Jain S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of
Hamema Munlir Purana Bazara Ward No. 8 Ratia Dist.
Falehabada, Haryana.
6. Ramesh Kumar S/o Bhala Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of WN-1 Vill. Hansliya Teh. Pibibanga Dist.
Hanumangarh.
7. Raju Nath S/o Durga Nath, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of
41 F Block Sriganganagar Dist. Ganganagar.
8. Manjot Kaur D/o Gurcharan Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of HNo. 94 Vill. Dhalian The. Raikat Dist. Ludhiana.
9. Mahendra Kumar S/o Phoola Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of 956 Gali No. 9 3 E Choti Sriganganagar
10. Sajan Kamboj S/o Harnam Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of Behak Hasta, Uttar Behak, Fazilka Punjab.
11. Ranjeet Singh S/o Wariam Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident of Vill. Asaf Wala, Kamikher Firozpur, Punjab.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Higher Education,
State Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, Through Its
Registrar.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. B.S.Sandhu, Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. J.R.
Chawel, Mr. Kaushal Gautam & Mr. N.K.
Sharma
For Respondents : Mr. K.L. Thakur, A.A.G. with Mr. Mayank
Rankawat, Mr. B.P. Bohra & Mr. D.D.
Chitlangi
_____________________________________________________
(9 of 22)
[ CW-4172/2018]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Reportable Order 08/05/2018
All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
Some of the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who are undergoing studies of second year of Three Years Law Course while the other petitions have been filed by the petitioners who are undergoing studies of third year of Three Years Law Course in different colleges affiliated with the respondent - Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner.
By way of a common prayer, a direction is sought to re- evaluate the answer books of the petitioners properly and award the marks accordingly with a further prayer that they should be allowed to appear in the examination of third year of the Three Years Law Course. The petitioners, who are students of the different Law Colleges affiliated with the respondent - University undergoing Three Years Law Course, are aggrieved by the utmost casual and lackluster manner in checking their answer books of the Supplementary Examination, 2017 of various subjects. The petitioners are students of second and third year of the Three Years Law Course. They are pursuing their legal studies from the colleges such as S.B.S. Law College, Sri Ganganagar, M.D. College, Sri Ganganagar and N.M. Law P.G. College, Hanumangarh Town, Rajasthan etc., which are affiliated with the respondent - University.
(10 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3727/2018.
The petitioners-students have successfully completed first year of the Three Years Law Course in the year 2016 and were given admission in the second year of the Three Year Law Course. After pursuing the studies of the second year, their examinations were held in the month of March - April, 2017. The petitioners appeared in the said examination and their result was declared in the month of June - July, 2017. Unfortunately, all the petitioners were declared to be failed and they were expected to appear in the supplementary examination of second year in the respective subjects, in which they could not obtain the minimum passing marks. The petitioners did not seek revaluation held by the respondent - University and accordingly, filled their form for taking the Supplementary Examination, 2017 of second year in the respective subjects, in which they had failed and meanwhile, they were also allowed to take admission in the third year of the Three Year Law Course as per the rules applicable. While they were undertaking their studies of third year, the date for supplementary examination of second year was declared and all the petitioners appeared in the said supplementary examination held in the month of September - October, 2017. The result of the said supplementary examination was declared by the respondent - University. Once again, they were declared 'fail'. Being aggrieved of the said result, the petitioners opted for revaluation of their answer books and submitted the requisite fees (11 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] for revaluation. The respondent - University after carrying out the revaluation process again declared the result of the revaluation in the month of December, 2017. However, to their dismay, all the petitioners were declared as fail in their respective subjects in the supplementary examination. Since 85% of the petitioners had failed, they approached their respective college authorities for redressal of their grievance. There was a strike in the respondent
- University on account of a large scale unprecedent failure of even some of the brightest students. It was claimed by the students that their answer-books have not been checked properly. An apprehension was expressed that the respondent - University had failed to exercise proper diligence while checking the answer- books of their supplementary examination. When every effort of theirs failed to move the authorities of the respondent - University and after almost a weeks' long strike, the petitioners and the likes were advised to ask for the copies of the supplementary examination under the Right to Information Act. In pursuance to the application filed under the R.T.I. Act between 5 th - 10th of January, 2018, the answer-sheets were supplied to only 4 or 5 students and that too after a lapse of almost two months in spite of the requisite procedure of supplying the same within 7-10 days forcing the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
In order to draw the attention of this Court to the arbitrary and casual manner, in which the answer books of their supplementary examination were checked, the petitioners have (12 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] placed on record certain copies of answer books obtained under the R.T.I. Act. From a perusal of these answer-sheets, it is evident that (a) some questions have been checked but marks have not been awarded (b) certain questions carry different marks on the title page from that mentioned in the answer books against the question concerned. The copy of the answer-sheet of subject Transfer of Property of the petitioner No. 4 shows that the same has not been checked at all. However, the petitioner is declared to have passed. There is not even a single mark of correction on the pages of the answer-sheet of this subject and no marks have been awarded. (c) same is the case with respect to the subject of Public International Law. In the subject of Jurisprudence, one part of the question has been given marks, whereas, the second part of the question has not been checked at all. Similar deficiencies are evident in the other answer books as well (d) two students falling under the same category have been awarded different result, one has been declared successful in the examination and the other has been declared unsuccessful. As per the requirement, a student has to secure minimum 36 marks in each paper and 48 as aggregate in all papers to successfully clear the examination. In case of one Shri Navdeep Kumar, who has secured 27 marks in the paper of Jurisprudence i.e. less than 36 marks, the result shows the candidate to have passed the examination with Second Division. In case of one Bikkar Singh, who has scored 14 marks in the paper of Jurisprudence i.e. less than 36 has been declared to be unsuccessful, (e) the answer (13 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] books have been corrected in an absolutely careless manner so much so that only one examiner i.e. Mrs. Kusum has been appointed to check the answer books of the different subjects such as Jurisprudence, Law of Crimes, Labour Law, Administrative Law, Public Interest Litigation and Company Law and (f) no uniform policy was followed. Certain examiners gave marks against each questions while others did not award any marks against each question but made mention of the marks on the title page.
After seeing the answer books, this Court found that the arbitrariness and the discrimination was writ large. Accordingly, while issuing the notices, interim direction to allow the petitioners to take their Third Year examination scheduled to be commenced from April, 2018 was granted. Simultaneously, the following directions were also issued :-
"Meanwhile, the respondent-University is directed to look into the serious irregularity, discrepancies as pointed out and take appropriate measures for rectification in a manner as deemed fit as the discrepancies as pointed out in the petition and apparent in the answer-sheets may even invite serious repercussion including initiating of enquiry by independent agency/criminal proceedings, if so required.
Copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the respondent No.2 along with paper book, which may be brought to the notice of Vice Chancellor of (14 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] the Respondent-University."
In pursuance to the Order dated 25.04.2018, the Registrar of the respondent - Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner was present before this Court and filed his additional affidavit stating that by way of proper measures to rectify the errors, if any, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent - University vide Office Order dated 17.04.2018 constituted a committee comprising of (1) Prof. (Dr.) S.S. Lal (Retired from Dept. of Law, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) (2) Prof. (Dr.) K.L. Sharma (Retired from Dept. of Law, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) and (3) Prof. (Dr.) J.K. Malik to check the fairness of earlier assessment of the answer books of all the petitioners. The said Committee opined that the answer books should be got rechecked by the subject experts. Accordingly, 168 answer books of 24 subjects of LL.B. first, second and third year of Three Years Law Course of the petitioners were got assessed and the comparative table of the marks obtained from the examinee in the previous assessment and the assessment made subsequently was got prepared. While doing so, the copy of the minutes of the committee along with comparative statement of the marks obtained in the previous assessment and the new assessment was collectively placed on record as Annexure-R/4. A perusal of the comparative table shows a change in the marks of each of the answer books but in spite of this rechecking, the petitioners are still shown to have received less than the minimum marks.
(15 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] This Court in order to satisfy itself also called for the list of panel of the subject experts as prepared by the Committee to check the answer books. A perusal of the said panel shows that almost all the subject experts/teachers have more than 11 years of experience. Some of them are also having 15, 20, 25 and 30 years of experience. The said list provided is made part of the record. Although, the objections have been filed by the petitioners through their rejoinder but this Court has no reason to disbelieve or doubt the outcome of the result in pursuance to the rechecking done by the new panel of subject experts as appointed by the duly constituted committee at the behest of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent - University. Thus, the first prayer of the petitioners that the respondent - University should be directed to evaluate their answer-sheets properly and award the marks accordingly is rendered infructuous. However, that does not mean that the Court is satisfied with the conduct, action, inaction of the authorities of the respondent - University in discharging their duties. The authorities of the respondent - University has miserably failed to discharge their duties with sincerity. The answer books have been corrected in an absolutely careless manner so much so that only one examiner i.e. Mrs. Kusum has been appointed to check the answer books of the different subjects such as Jurisprudence, Law of Crimes, Labour Law, Administrative Law, Public Interest Litigation and Company Law. The copies of different subjects corrected by one and only Mrs. Kusum have been placed on record as Annexure-13 collectively.
(16 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] This Court fails to understand as to how one examiner was expert of all the subjects. The wrong and illegality amounting to almost an offence is unforgivable. The irresponsible manner of correcting the answer books and thus, playing with the career of the students has shaken the faith in the educational system resulting in apprehension, uncertainty and multiple problems. The efforts of the Committee in its report to try and give a clean chit is uncalled for in view of the various irregularities apparent on the face of it. No uniform policy was followed. Certain examiners gave marks against each questions while others did not award any marks against each question but made mention of the marks on the title page. It is stated that as per the guidelines, the examiner must award marks only on the title page of the answer- book and must not award marks inside the answer-book. If it is so, it is not understood as to how the others have awarded the marks inside the answer-books. Not awarding marks inside the answer books and only awarding marks on the title page is defective in itself and is capable of being used and misused in an arbitrary manner. The fact also remains that no uniform policy was followed by the examiners giving rise to suspicion in the minds of students.
The respondent - University cannot deny the irregularities as it is evident from the reply filed by the respondent - University that the University itself had ordered revaluation of the papers in January, 2018. Everything was allegedly found in order as per the revaluation. Thereafter, in pursuance to the directions issued by (17 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] this Court to take remedial measures, the respondent - University on its own ordered re-examination of the answer books by their decision dated 24.03.2018. This time, there was a definite change in the marks in pursuance to the rechecking. Although, the petitioners have still not got more than the minimum marks, the said increase and decrease of the marks received in the revaluation shows definite inconsistency in the earlier assessment and the present assessment. Prima facie, finding that there was large scale irregularities, the respondent - University has also restrained a number of examiners from correcting the answer- books in future.
Such careless, irresponsible and criminal approach towards checking of answer books needs to be enquired into.
Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to direct the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to form a committee comprising of at least three members, out of which one member will be the Secretary himself and others two shall be the Dean of the different Universities. The said Committee shall enquire into the irregularities committed at the level of the respondent - Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, Controller of Examination and the Coordinator, as the case may be, while appointing Expert Panelists, as to whether any guidelines have been laid down by the respondent - University for checking and awarding of the marks, whether examiners have followed those guidelines and whether the respondent - University has taken appropriate measures for supervising/cross-checking (18 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] that no irregularity is committed when the answer books are checked and also to enquire as to in what circumstances, only one examiner i.e. Mrs. Kusum was appointed to check the answer books of various subjects. The said committee shall submit its report to this Court within six months from the receipt of copy of this order.
This brings us to the second prayer of the petitioner - students seeking a direction to allow them to appear in the examination of third year of Three Years Law Course. As per the rules of the University, once a candidate is unable to clear the supplementary examination, he is declared as failed. Meaning thereby, he has liberty to appear as an ex-student in the examination of the previous year along with the examination of the year, in which he has already been granted provisional admission. The Ordinance 253-C reads as under :-
"O. 253-C :
(i) A candidate who is declared eligible for appearing at the Supplementary Examination at the LL.B. First Year (P)/(A) class will be allowed provisional admission to the LL.B. (P)/(A) Second Year Class. In the event of his failing at the said Supplementary Examination, his provisional admission to LL.B. II Year (P)/A(A) class will automatically stand cancelled and such candidate shall have to appear in the LL.B. First Year Examination as an ex-student in all the papers prescribed for the course.
(ii) A candidate who is declared eligible for (19 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] appearing in the Supplementary Examination at the LL.B. Second Year (P)/(A) class will be allowed provisional admission to the LL.B. (P) Third Year class. In the event of his failing at the said Supplementary Examination, his provisional admission to LL.B. (P) Third Year class will automatically stands cancelled and such candidate shall have to appear in the LL.B. (P)/(A) Second Year Examination as an ex-student in all the papers prescribed for the course.
(iii) A candidate who is declared eligible for appearing at the Supplementary Examination at the LL.B. (P) Third Year Class will appear at the Supplementary Examination of the LL.B. III Year Class. In the event of his failing at this Supplementary Examination, he will appear as an ex-student in all the papers of LL.B. III year Examination as per rules.
Explanation : A candidate who has/had been permitted to take LL.B. First, Second or Third Year Examinations as a regular candidate under the existing course of study shall be entitled to the credit of full marks obtained by him in the Supplementary Examination to calculate his result."
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners appeared in the supplementary examination of the second year in September - October, 2017. Their result of supplementary examination was declared in December, 2017, in which they were shown as having failed. In case, there was no controversy, they would have (20 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] appeared as ex-student for the second year examination along with regular examination of the third year in March - April, 2018. However, failure on the part of the respondent - University to discharge its duty with honesty and sincerity in the supplementary examination so conducted in September - October, 2017 led to chaos, litigation and uncertainty resulting in appointment of a Committee for fresh rechecking of the answer books. The Committee formed by the University finally gave its report on 01.05.2018. Due to this inconsistency, the petitioners could not take their examinations of the second year as ex-student when the regular examination of second year was held in March - April, 2018. Meanwhile, they were allowed to appear in the examination of third year held in March - April, 2018 by an interim order of this Court in pursuance to the admission already granted to them by the respondents at their own level in accordance with rules. Thus, they will now stand to loose two years instead of one year, which would be rather harsh and will stand to be punished for no fault of theirs.
Accordingly, on account of unprecedent special circumstances as above and to see that the students do not suffer for no fault of theirs, this Court while keeping both the above objections and rules in mind deems it just and proper to direct the respondent - University to allow these petitioners to take their first and second year examinations, as the case may be, as ex- student in all the subjects during the supplementary examination to be held for these classes during this year itself. However, the (21 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] result of their examination of second and third year, which has already been undertaken by them in pursuance to the interim order will be declared only in case, they clear all the subjects of their respective years undertaken by them as ex-student. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of as under :-
A. The first prayer of the petitioners seeking to re-
evaluate their answer-sheets is rendered infructuous. B. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur shall form a committee comprising of at least three members, out of which one member will be the Secretary himself and others two shall be the Dean of the different Universities. The said Committee shall enquire into the irregularities committed at the level of the respondent
- Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, Controller of Examination and the Coordinator, as the case may be, and submit its report to this Court within six months from the receipt of copy of this order as discussed above.
C. The petitioners shall appear as ex-student in all the subjects of their respective first, second and third year of Three Years Law Course along with the supplementary examinations being held in the year 2018.
D. Their result of the examination already undertaken by them in pursuance to their provisional admission of (22 of 22) [ CW-4172/2018] second or third year, as the case may be, will be declared only in case of such students, who clear/pass their first and second year in pursuance to their undertaking the examination as ordered above. E. In case of the students who fail, their provisional admission in the second or third year, as the case may be, of the Three Year Law Course shall also stand cancelled.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
Inder/Jr.P.A. 99-107 & coupl.