Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Chandila vs Kurukshetra University And Anr on 25 November, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.23962 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23962 of 2014
Date of Decision.25.11.2014
Rakesh Chandila ......Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University and another ......Respondents
Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner who was a candidate in LLM examination and who had secured less than 55% wanted to brighten his chances for registration for Ph.D programme and other higher courses which required 55% as the minimum. The attempt was through an application for re-evaluation of two papers where he had secured 52 and 50. The re-evaluation yielded to a result of 46 marks in one subject and 36 marks for another subject which meant that in the re-evaluation, he had secured lesser marks but it was less than 20% in aggregate to the marks already awarded. The rules relating to the re-evaluation provided that if re-evaluation yielded a chance by more than 20% of the whole marks or less than 20% then it would be sent to a 2nd evaluator and average marks will be taken and if such an average resulted in a decimal it will be rounded off to the nearest whole number. Since, in this case, the petitioner's marks were within 20% of what he had originally secured, PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.11.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.23962 of 2014 -2- the proviso to the rules applied viz; the minimum of pass marks had been awarded. The petitioner's grievance is that, for a subject in re- evaluation which yielded only 36, he should be treated as failed and by awarding him with 50% he is unable to improve his tally and hence denied an opportunity of taking the examination and improving his performance.
2. The rule challenged reads thus:-
"18.1(a) to 18.2 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 18.3 Increase/decrease of marks due to re-evaluation of answer book(s) will be taken into account to the extent that if the increase of marks due to re-evaluation of answer books is upto 20% of the maximum marks of the paper or even if the decrease of marks due to re-evaluation of answer books is upto 20% of the maximum marks of the paper full marks may be taken into consideration subject to clause 18.4 of the rules. Provided that if the marks are increased due to re-evaluation of answer books by more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper and also if the marks are decreased due to re-evaluation of answer books by more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper, the answer book(s) will be sent to the second re-evaluator. Average of the two higher awards given by the re-evaluators/examiner will be taken into consideration but the candidate will be allowed minimum pass marks if any of the three examiners including the two re-evaluators awards minimum pass marks or more than pass marks. Fractional marks if any shall be rounded to next full mark.
(a) Re-evaluation of theory papers in all years of study of the BDS course is permissible by the University on application and remittance of a prescribed fee. Such answer script shall be re-evaluated by not less than two duly qualified examiners and the average obtained shall be awarded to the candidate and the result accordingly reconsidered."
3. The rule states that if marks obtained on re-evaluation is lesser than the marks originally awarded to him but if the difference was less than 20%, the minimum pass marks will be taken. It is a manner of PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.11.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.23962 of 2014 -3- securing to a candidate the benefit of pass marks. In this case, the benefit of pass marks does not help him, for, he wants to improve his chance with the higher tally than mere pass marks, namely an average over 55% to enter into Ph.D or other programmes. If the Rule works out to his hardship then he must stand by the same and cannot have a claim that there is anything inherently wrong about the Rule. There is no basis for an argument that if he has obtained lesser marks and even if it is within a range of 20%, he should be declared as failed. It will actually operate to a great disadvantage to majority of candidates of failing a candidate on re-evaluation, which declared passed initially. The rule takes care of a situation that a person, whose re-evaluation even secures less marks but within a range of 20%, will be awarded the minimum pass marks. Such a rule is most just.
4. The learned counsel would also have an argument that in the manner of purported compliance of the re-evaluation, they have made available the answer sheets to the queries raised in RTI about the re-evaluation done. While in one paper marks have been awarded in re- evaluation against each answer, in yet another answer sheet which is re- evaluated the marks assigned to each answer has not been given and they have only given the aggregate marks as 36. It is open to the petitioner to seek for the details of how these 36 marks have been brought in aggregate, for, I have nothing to suspect that these 36 marks are merely a whimsical total which is shown to the petitioner. If the petitioner would engage the respondents with such a request and if there are no details as to how this aggregate of 36 has been brought in the re-evaluation, the petitioner would still have liberty to challenge PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.11.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.23962 of 2014 -4- the same. As of now, I would find nothing for interference.
5. The writ petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 25, 2014 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2014.11.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh