Kerala High Court
Mr.Deen Sis Jocky vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 16 August, 2017
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 31626 of 2017 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------------------
MR.DEEN SIS JOCKY,
AGED 25, S/O SIS. J. KALATHIL, KALATHIL HOUSE,
GOTHURUTH P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM (DISTRICT).
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KALAMASSERY P.O.,
KOCHI-22.
2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
KOCHI-22.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-11-2017, THE COURT ON 24-11-2017 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 31626 of 2017 (C)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL MARK LIST ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REVALUATION MARK LIST.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER BOOK SCHEME.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE KEY OF VALUATION.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 16.8.2017 ISSUED BY
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.11592/2013 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to conduct a further evaluation of Ext.P3 answer book, as per Ext.P4 Key of Valuation. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
2. Petitioner was a B.Tech - Computer Science student during 2010-2014 in IHRD College of Engineering, Poonjar, a college affiliated to the 1st respondent. Since he failed in one paper in B.Tech degree, III Semester viz., Electronic Devices and Circuits (2006 Scheme), he appeared for the said paper in the Supplementary Examination during November, 2016. The result was published on 21.04.2017 and the petitioner failed in the said paper. According to the petitioner, it was informed that, petitioner got only 29 marks in the examination, whereas, 45 marks is required for a pass.
2. In the above circumstances, petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer paper. The respondent after revaluation declared that petitioner failed in the examination, W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 2 even though petitioner could secure 40 marks in the revaluation. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an application seeking issuance of copies of answer book, scheme, key of valuation, original mark sheet and revaluation mark sheet. According to the petitioner, on comparison of Ext.P3 answer sheet and Ext.P4 key of evaluation, it is evident that respondents have not valued/revalued Ext.P3 answer book properly, and it was thereupon only, petitioner failed in the examination. It is also submitted that, on getting Exts.P3 and P4, petitioner contacted the 2nd respondent and pointed out the mistakes in valuation/revaluation. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 25.08.2017 along with a request of the Principal, seeking further valuation. Thereupon, petitioner was informed as per Ext.P5 letter dated 16.08.2017 that no request for further valuation can be entertained after revaluation of an answer book. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the relief sought for in the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, while W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 3 forwarding photocopies of examination materials, it was informed that, request for further action, if any, on this will not be entertained or replied to, since there is no provision in the Examination Regulations for a further valuation after re- valuation. It is also submitted that, this Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in W.P.(C) No.11592 of 2013 and the same was dismissed, holding that there can be no second revaluation, relying on the judgment of the apex court in 'West Bengal Council of Higher Education v. Ayan Das' [2007 (8) SCC 242 : 2007 (4) KLT 535], wherein it is held that, in the absence of a statutory provision, the court cannot direct re-assessment or re-examination of answer paper, since there should be a finality to the public examinations conducted by any University. A copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11592 of 2013 is produced as Ext.R1(a).
4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also contending that, in accordance with the notification issued by the University dated 19.08.2004, there is a scope for further revaluation. W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.
6. The sole question to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled for a further revaluation of the paper. The subject matter of this writ petition revolves around the notification dated 19.08.2004 issued by the University by virtue of the powers conferred by sub-section (iv) of Section 18 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, by amending clause 10(2)(a), 10(2)(b) and 10(2)(c) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Ordinance in respect of the Rules regarding the conduct of various University Examinations. In accordance with the amendment, clause 10(2) would read as follows:
"10(2): After revaluation, results will be finalized as follows:
(a) The original marks secured by the candidate will not be changed in the following cases:
(1) If the revalued marks are less than the marks secured in the original valuation.
(2) If the revalued marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by less than 10% of the secured marks of the paper.W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 5
(b) If the revalued marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by 10% of the secured marks of the papers, the revalued marks will be taken as the final marks and the marks secured by the candidates in the original valuation will be changed accordingly.
(c) If the revalued marks are higher than the original marks by more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper, a second revaluation is to be done and the average of the two examiners - original examiner and two revaluers which are highest to each other is to be awarded to the candidate. However, the increase in the marks after the two revaluations should be 10% or above, if the change is to be effected."
7. Clauses (b) and (c) quoted above are relevant to the context. As per clause (b), if the revalued marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by 10% of the "secured marks of the papers", the revalued marks will be taken as the final marks and the marks secured by the candidates in the original valuation will be changed accordingly. Therefore, it is clear that, if the marks secured by the petitioner in the revaluation exceeds 10% of the marks secured for the papers, then the 10% marks would be added to the marks secured by the petitioner. However, as per clause (c), if the revalued marks are higher than the original marks by more than 20% of the "maximum marks" of the paper, a second revaluation is to be done and the average of the two examiners - original examiner and two revaluers which W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 6 are highest to each other is to be awarded to the candidate. From the said stipulation contained under clause (2), it is clear that the revaluers mentioned thereunder are revaluers contemplated under clause (b) and first limb of clause (c). The second limb of clause (c) further stipulates that the increase in the marks after the two revaluations should be 10% or above, if the change is to be effected. Therein also, the two revaluers mentioned are revaluers under clause (b) and first limb of clause (c).
8. Evaluating the fact situations and reckoning the law available from the rules of revaluation, it is evident that petitioner could secure 10% of the "secured marks" of the paper as provided under clause (b), however, petitioner could not secure 20% of the "maximum marks" of the paper in order to have a second revaluation.
9. To top up the fact situations, the issue was considered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11592 of 2013 and held that, in the absence of suitable provision for a further revaluation, it may not be appropriate on the part of this Court to issue any such direction as is sought for. I have also gone through the judgment of the apex court in 'West W.P.(C) No.31626 of 2017 7 Bengal Council of Higher Education' (supra), wherein, it is held that, in the absence of a statutory provision, the court cannot direct re-assessment of answer scripts. Applying the law laid down by this Court as well as the apex court, it is evident that the provision available under the notification specified above will not protect the claims raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, it is clear and evident that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition.
Resultantly, there are no circumstances made out by the petitioner justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no arbitrariness, illegality or any other legal infirmities. The writ petition fails, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE St/-
22.11.2017