Karnataka High Court
Subramanian Bharathi S. vs Registrar (Evaluation), Bangalore ... on 9 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995KANT7, ILR1994KAR1038, 1994(2)KARLJ149, AIR 1995 KARNATAKA 7, (1994) 4 SERVLR 392, (1994) 4 SCT 546, (1994) 2 KANT LJ 149
ORDER Vasanthakumar, J.
1. This Writ Petition is before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The question for consideration is regarding the scope of Judicial Review pertaining to Revaluation (Review) of Answer Scripts of students, who are aggrieved of the results of examination announced by the Bangalore University.
2. The petitioner got himself admitted to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College for M.B.B.S., course in the year 1984 affiliated to the Bangalore University. He sat for the final M.B.B.S. Degree (Part 11) examination held in the month of February 1993 with reglstra-
tion No. ME. 5045. Discipline of the course for which petitioner appeared comprised three subjects viz., First Subject: Medicine a) Theory & viva-voce b) Clinicals Second Subject: Surgery a) Theory - Viva-voce b) Clinicals Third Subject: Obstetrics & Gynaecology a) Theory - Viva-voce b) Clinicals.
In the results announced, it was found that the petitioner had failed in theory in the second subject and both in theory and clinical in third subject. By virtue of the ordinance, then in force, the petitioner applied for Revaluation. On 2/3-8-93, Registrar Evaluation issued a notification announcing list of students declared successful at the Final M.B.B.S. Part II after revaluation, and in that list petitioner's Registration No. 5045 was entered in the column TAL (to be announced later) under both the subjects. Subsequently, on 10-8-1993 the Registrar Evaluation issued another notification in respect of those register numbers found against entry TAL. in respect of the First Subject, and later on 15-9-1993, another notification was issued regarding results of those register numbers found as against entry TAL in Part I and Subjects 1 and 3 in Part-II. Even after Revaluation, the petitioner was found to have failed in the subjects notified earlier, i.e., the third subject. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this petition under-Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:--
"(i) For issue of Writ of Mandamus 10 the respondent to produce the answer book of the petitioner pertaining to the subject Obstetrics and Gynaecology bearing Registration No. ME. 5045 of the MBBS. Examination conducted by the University of Bangalore during Feb, 1993 before this Hon'ble Court to justify the award of marks by the valuer/revalner in accordance with the scheme of the valuation.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent to forthwith declare the result of revaluation of Surgery paper pertaining to the petitioner bearing Regn. 5045 in respect of examination referred to above."
3. The vexed question that requires determination is about the scope of judicial review in the matter of revaluation? It is to be noted that the concept of revaluation is against public interest since results of public examinations when published will have no finality.
4. In exercise of its powers conferred under Section 38 of the Karnataka State Universities Act,' 1976, Syndicate of Bangalore University made certain amendments to the ordinance which was in force earlier in point of time regarding Revaluation (Review) of Answer scripts; the same being:--
"Rs. 100/- shall be paid to the Bangalore University funds towards revaluation (review) for each answer script of maximum marks of 100 or less and submit the application mentioning details as specified in the prescribed proforma so as to reach the University within 10 days of the receipt of marks cards or within 15 days of the announcement of results, whichever is later, through the Principal of the concerned College/Director of correspondence course. However, where the results of some candidates could not be finalised by the University. For various reasons, the College concerned shall ensure that the results of all the remaining candidates are declared by the University within two weeks from the date of the first notification of the results to facilitate these candidates to become eligible for revaluation (review).
(2) The Principal should forward the applications with his remarks after satisfying that the student who has applied for revaluation (review) has consistent good academic record and that particular answer script deserves revaluation (review).
Applications received without specific remarks of the Principal in this behalf shall be rejected.
3. 50% of the above amount will be refunded only in case the marks awarded after the revaluation (review) exceeds 10% of the maximum marks of that paper to that of the original marks. However, in respect of SC/ST candidates 50% concession for the amount to be paid to the University funds will be given and they are required to produce the attested copies of caste certificate along with the application for revaluation (review).
4. Answer scripts will be referred to one external examiner not connected with this University examination work chosen by the Vice-Chancellor within the approved panel of the Syndicate.
5. (i) On receipt of revaluation marks if the difference is up to 15% of the maximum marks for the paper between 1 valuation and 11 valuation the student be given benefit of the higher of the two.
(ii) Where the difference is more than 15% of the maximum marks between 1 valuation and the II valuation such scripts shall be sent to the III Valuer whose award of marks shall be final.
(iii) In case of all these, if the marks obtained in the I valuation were to be higher than the subsequent marks obtained after revaluation, the student will retain the original marks.
(iv) In all cases where revaluation is resorted to the external examiner shall be chosen by the Vice-Chancellor oui of the panel of examiners approved by the Syndicate.
6. There shall be no revaluation (review) for the Post-Graduate Course of all the faculties.
7. No revised rank will be declared in respect of those who gel benefit in the revaluation (review) and no incidental benefit which occurs due to the revaluation (review) will be granted, except declaration of class.
However, the student who passes the- examination on the basis of revaluation will be eligible to join the next higher class in the degree programme concerned provided he chooses to join the classes late in the academic year at his own risk and to make up the instructional programme already completed (in the academic year) and also ensures at least 60% attendance in the whole academic year, after allowing for the benefit of 15% condonation of attendance, as admissible.
However, a candidate may be permitted to proceed to the higher class, if the Principal of the College satisfies himself, that the said candidate when admitted, would satisfy the attendance and other requirements as prescribed by the concerned regulations of the University.
8. A sum of Rs.5/- shall be paid to the examiners as remuneration per script subject to minimum of Rs. 25/- per examiner in any subject,
9. Erring teachers will be punished for erratic evaluation if it comes to the notice of the University that the difference between the origmal marks and the marks obtained after revaluation (review) exceeds 25% of the maximum marks of the paper. Such teachers will be debarred from all examinations work as per rules after conducting necessary enquiry by the Vice Chancellor.
10. This shall come into effect from the examinations conducted during April/May 1985 onwards."
Subsequently clauses 1 and 2 of the Ordinance were amended, the Amended Ordinance reads :--
"(1) The application for revaluation (review) of answer scripts of maximum marks of 100 or less may be submitted in the prescribed pro forma so as to reach the University within 15 days of the announcement of results through the Principal of the concerned College/Director of Correspondence Course.
The application for revaluation (review) shall be accompanied by a challan for having remitted the following fee per paper.
i) B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. - Rs. 100/-
ii) Law/Education/Physical Education/Pharmacy - Rs. 200/-
iii) Engineering - Rs. 250/-
iv) Medical including Unani/Ayurveda/ Homoeopathy/Dental - Rs. 300/-
However, where the results of some candidates could not be finalised by the University for various reasons, the college concerned shall ensure that the results of all the remaining candidates are declared by the University within two weeks from the date of the first notification of the resuhs to facilitate those candidates to become eligible for revaluation (review).
2. (i) A student who has passed in at least two-third of the subjects to which he has appeared only is entitled to apply for revaluation (review).
However, if the number of papers is less than three, the acfual number of papers the student has appeared.
(ii) The Principal should forward the apphcations with his remarks after satisfying that the student who has applied for revaluation (review) has consistent good academic record and has secured at least 20 per cent of the maximum marks in the paper and the particular answer scripts deserves revaluation (review)."
The petitioner's Counsel submits that the very object of revaluation is correctional and the same is to rule out glaring errors in the results. It is argued that revaluation has its advantages and confers a justiciable right. The examiners being human beings, tend to commit errors which may be on account of omission, inadvertence or sometimes intentional, and if they remain, unchecked and unnoticed then it would mar the career of the students, that too in these days when the entire educational system has become highly competitive and each mark counts for purposes of future career of the student. Further, it is submitted that revaluation will result in ensuring that element of any error in initial valuation is ruled out and further that it gives satisfaction to the concerned student that his score in the examination is just and fair and thereby eliminate any heart burning. As against this contention, it is argued by the University's Counsel, Sri Seshadri, that the very purpose of the ordinance giving an opportunity to the student to apply for revaluation is to rule out marginal human errors and not to confer a right to make process of evaluation a justiciable one and amenable to judicial review. It is pointed out that the examination is conducted throughout the State through various centres and if revaluation is made justiciable then separate set of examiners throughout the State have to be constituted and secrecy involved in the system would be difficult to maintain and the whole exercise regarding secrecy will have to be gone through over again while sending answers for revaluation which would ultimately delay in finalisation of result for considerable period which would be detrimental to the students. Further, results have to be declared and finalised on a time bound basis and delay in finalisation of the result would itself cause prejudice to the students. Further, it is argued by Sri Seshadri that the Syndicate after elaborate study of the system of revaluation has revised the ordinance in the month of October, 1993 and has formulated certain guidelines wherein safeguards have been provided to maintain secrecy as well as fair play in the process of evaluation.
5. We are not concerned with the methodology adopted by the University Authorities regarding procedural aspects of the evaluation. What we are concerned is whether it is open for the student to make the process of revaluation a justiciable one. This Court in Sudha v. State of Karnataka reported in (1985) 1 Kant LJ 61, following The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth vide, , has held the right for inspection or revaluation of answer scripts as being not justiciable.
6. The petitioner's counsel draws our attention to the decision reported in Rekha Viswanath Ganachari v. Registrar (Evaluation) reported in ILR 1993 Kant 1238, wherein this Court has issued a writ in the nature of mandamus with directions to appoint another examiner to revalue the answer paper of the petitioner and thereby made the process of evaluation a justiciable one. It is to be stated that the learned single Judge has dwelt on the methodology of revaluation and the manner in which examiners have to value the papers, and in that context has made the process of evaluation a justiciable one. Obviously, the ruling of the Supreme Court and that of this Court reported in 1985 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 1, was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge as the same is not reflected in the aforesaid decision. The Supreme Court, as early as in the year , has observed that the Courts should not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by Legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. The observations relevant for the purpose of appreciating the contentions advanced are found at Paragraph-14, which reads as follows : --
"We shall first take up for consideration the contention that Cl. (3) of Regn. 104 is ultra vires the regulation-making powers of the Board. The point urged by the petitioners before the High Court was that the prohibition against the inspection or disclosure of the answer papers and other documents and the declaration made in the impugned clause that they are "treated by the Divisional Board as confidential documents" do not serve any of the purposes of the Act and hence these provisions are ultra vires. The High Court was of the view that the said contention of the petitioners had to be examined against the back-drop of the fact disclosed by some of the records produced before it that in the past there had been a few instances where some students possessing inferior merits had succeeded in passing of the answer papers of other brilliant students as their own by tampering with seat numbers or otherwise and the verification process contemplated under Regn. 104 had failed to detect the mischief. In our opinion, this apprpach made by the High Court was not correct or proper because the question whether ^particular piece of delegated legislation whether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument -- is in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate as to be determined with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc., and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or 'regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the Court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations' for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned-regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred the delegate by the Statute. Though this legal position is well established by a long series of decisions of this Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the consideration, of the question as to whether tne impugned cl. (3) of Regn. 104 is ultra vires. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we shall now proceed to consider the challenge levelled against the validity of the Regn. 104(3)."
7. In view of the authoritative pronoun-cemen) of the Supreme Court referred above, we are of the view that the ratio decided by this Court in kckha Viswanath Ganachari v. Registrar (Evaluation) (ILR 1993 Kant 1238) cannot be construed as postulating correct proposition of law touching upon the subject matter of Revaluation (Revision) of answer scripts. The petitioner in this writ petition is therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought for.
Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule issued is discharged. 8. Petition dismissed.