Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Sonal Jaiswal vs Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand ... on 7 December, 2009
Author: Dhirendra Mishra
Bench: Dhirendra Mishra
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P. c No.5392 of 2009
(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Ku. Sonal Jaiswal
...Petitioners
Vs
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University
...Respondents
! Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.
Dhirendra Mishra, J
Dated:07/12/2009
: Judgement
O R D E R
(Passed on 07.12.2009)
1. The petitioner was regular student of sixth semester of B.E. Course. She was declared fail in the examination of Basic Electrical Engineering of second semester and therefore, she was not allowed to appear in the sixth semester examination. Earlier W.P. (c) No.2081/2009 of the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 9.7.2009 and the respondent was directed to revaluate answer sheet of the petitioner. After revaluation of Basic Electrical Engineering paper, the result was declared and there was no change in the marks of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for photocopy of the revalued answer sheet of Basic Electrical Engineering paper for making further application for re- revaluation but the respondent vide order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) refused to supply the photocopy of revalued answer sheet on the ground that there is no such direction from the High Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per notification dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) re-revaluation is permissible, however, as per procedure prescribed in the notification, the candidate applying for re-revaluation is required to obtain photocopy of revalued answer sheets within ten days from declaration of revaluation result and the application is to be accompanied with a fee of Rs.500/-. He further submits that the petitioner came to know that she had obtained 41 marks in the revaluation of her answer sheet of Basic Electrical Engineering subject, however, she was communicated `no change' in the result by the respondent as the respondent has made it a prestigious issue. Revaluation has not been done in accordance with Rule 27 of the Ordinance No.5.
With these averments, the petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents to re-revaluate the Basic Electrical Engineering paper of second semester of the petitioner by any independent examiner and has also prayed for direction to the respondent to supply Xerox copy of the revalued answer sheet of Basic Electrical Engineering subject and in the meanwhile direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the sixth semester as backlog and in case she passed in re-revaluation, to grant her admission in seventh semester.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that W.P. (c) No.2081/09 was disposed of on the basis of written submissions filed by the counsel appearing for the respondent university that the answer sheets of the Basic Electrical Engineering subject of the supplementary examination in second semester of the petitioner will be revalued as a special case and result would be accordingly declared within reasonable time. Accordingly, revaluation of her supplementary examination answer sheet was done and the result `no change' was duly declared on 22.8.2009. The petitioner was given an opportunity for revaluation on sympathetic ground as a special case, however, the petitioner is not entitled for re-revaluation.
It was further submitted that in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Ordinance No.14 of the university, a candidate cannot be admitted in fifth or sixth semester unless he or she has fully passed/cleared the first and second semester examinations respectively. Since the petitioner has not cleared the second semester examination, she cannot be admitted in sixth semester examination.
As per decision of the Examination Council in its meeting dated 19.7.2006, revaluation is not permitted in supplementary examination and only re-totaling is permitted. Since the petitioner has not cleared the Basic Electrical Engineering paper of second semester, she cannot be granted regular admission in the sixth semester.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. W.P. (c) No.2081/09 was disposed of vide order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) in which submission of the learned counsel for the respondent University was recorded that as a special case, if the answer sheets of the petitioner are available, the same shall be revalued and results would be declared accordingly within reasonable time. It appears that thereafter the university declared the result of revaluation and no change was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied for photocopy of the revalued answer sheets, however, the same was refused by the respondent-university vide its memo dated 9.9.2009.
6. In order to verify the averments made by the petitioner in Para 9.5 of the petition, the answer book of Basic Electrical Engineering subject after revaluation was requisitioned for perusal.
7. Clause 22 of Ordinance No.5 deals with revaluation which reads thus:
"22. Where a candidate applies for revaluation the answer book in which revaluation is sought will be sent for valuation by the Kulpati, to two examiners (other than one who initially valued it) at least one of whom shall be from the place outside the State of Chhattisgarh. Ten answer books valued by the same examiner and a copy of the memorandum of Instructions for the guidance of the examiner if prepared by the paper setter will be sent to each of the two examiners to enable them to evaluate the answer book concerned in the light of the standard set by the examiner and the memorandum of instructions. If less than ten candidates had appeared at the examination in the paper concerned the answer book of all the candidates shall be sent to each of the examiners. Each of two examiners shall receive remuneration as decided by University for the revaluation of an answer book.
(2) If the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluers and nearest to each other will be taken to represent the `correct valuation'. This average of marks will be awarded to the candidate for the revision of his result.
Provided that subject to the condition that atleast one of the variations from the original marks is more than 10% of the maximum marks, in the paper if two difference in marks allotted by the three examiners are equal, the two marks to the best advantage of the candidate shall be taken into account for arriving at the correct valuation."
8. From perusal of the marks awarded to the petitioner after revaluation and comparing it with the original marks obtained by the petitioner in the supplementary examination, the communication of result of "no change" by the respondent university is strictly in accordance with Rule 22 of the Ordinance No.5.
9. Annexure P-4 is the notification dated 5.7.2008 issued by the University for re-revaluation of the answer books. The aforesaid notification has been issued with reference to implementation of the decision of 12th meeting of the Co- ordination Committee of Universities. From perusal of the aforesaid notification it is clear that the candidates of main examination, who desire to apply for re-revaluation of their respective answer books, are required to first obtain photocopy of the answer book and for that purpose they have to apply on prescribed application form along with the fee of Rs.500/- within ten days from the date of declaration of revaluation result. After going through the Xerox copy of the answer book, the candidate can apply for re-revaluation by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.600/- within 15 days from the date of declaration of revaluation result. Thus, re- revaluation is permissible only with respect to answer books of the main examination and it has no application whatsoever to the answer books of the supplementary examination.
10. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, the decision of the respondent university in refusing the request of the petitioner to re-revaluate the answer book of Basic Electrical Engineering paper of second semester supplementary examination is in accordance with the notification of Annexure P-4 dated 5.7.2008, Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the respondent-University and no relief, as prayed for in the writ petition, can be granted to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
J U D G E