Madras High Court
S.Joseph Selvaraj vs The Registrar on 3 June, 2014
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.2697 of 2013
S.Joseph Selvaraj .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Registrar
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The Controller of Examinations
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3. The Public Information Officer
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005 .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the re-evaluated marks 26 for the paper having subject code MLCA'' and title ''Criminology, Penology and the treatment of offenders'' informed to the petitioner vide Letter No.E6/Law/RTI/2012/20 dated 03.01.2013 (served on 05.01.2013) by the 3rd respondent as null and void and direct the respondents to re-evaluate the aforesaid paper by a legally qualified / legally competent person as set out in the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010, Bar Council of India (Legal Education Rules, 2008) and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in ''D.Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu'' on 23 February, 2012 and as per regulations, instructions and / or guidelines or rules that are required to be followed in the matter of re-evaluation of an answer script by University of Madras and as per instructions issued by the 2nd respondent regarding re-evaluation of answer scripts and communicate the re-evaluated mark to the petitioner.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Joseph Selvaraj
Party-in-person
For Respondents :: Ms.G.Thilakavathi
ORDER
Seeking a writ of declaration to declare the re-evaluated marks 26 for the paper having subject code MLCA'' titled ''Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders'' informed to the petitioner vide Letter No.E6/Law/RTI/2012/20 dated 03.01.2013 (served on 05.01.2013) by the Public Information Officer, University of Madras, the third respondent as null and void and thereupon to direct the respondents to re-evaluate the aforesaid paper by a legally qualified / legally competent person as set out in the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010, Bar Council of India (Legal Education Rules, 2008) and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in ''D.Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu'' on 23.02.2012 and as per regulations, instructions and / or guidelines or rules that are required to be followed in the matter of re-evaluation of an answer script by University of Madras, as per instructions issued by the Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, the second respondent regarding re-evaluation of answer scripts and to communicate the re-evaluated mark to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr.S.Joseph Selvaraj, the petitioner appearing-in-person submitted that he got admitted to M.L. Degree course during the year 2011-12 batch with criminal law as the specialised subject in the respondent University. When he appeared for all the six subject papers in the first year (non-semester) examination, he claims to have performed excellently in all the subjects, however, he found from the University website on 24.8.2012 that he was awarded pass marks only in three subject papers and fail marks in the remaining three subject papers i.e., below 50 marks. In view of that, he applied for certified copies of answer scripts in respect of the following three subject papers from the respondent University, namely, MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence. The University also, after completion of re-evaluation, published the results in their website and the petitioner found only the result of the subject paper MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence, however, the results of re-evaluation for the other two subject papers viz., MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence, were not found therein. Hence, he contacted the University officials in person on 1.11.2012 and got the mark sheet. The petitioner again explained before this Court that the re-evaluated marks in the subject paper MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence became ''50'' from ''22'' and the re-evaluated marks in the subject paper MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education became ''50'' from ''40''. By indicating these two re-evaluated marks, he has argued that after re-evaluation, when the marks in the subject papers MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence and MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education became 50 and 50 respectively, it is evident that his answer scripts for the above subject papers had not been properly evaluated. Had he not applied for re-evaluation, the marks awarded for the subject papers initially would have remained the same. However, in respect of the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders, marks furnished being ''26'' in the mark sheet, even after re-evaluation, the same marks ''26'' was found. Aggrieved by the re-evaluated marks in the subject MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders, he has argued before this Court that he was unable to understand as to whether the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders was re-evaluated or not, for the reason that if the said subject paper has been re-evaluated, the re-evaluated marks would have been found in the mark sheet. But there is no indication or remarks in the mark sheet. In view of that, he has sent notices to the first and second respondents on 1.11.2012 and also filed a petition under the Right to Information Act on the same date before the third respondent-Public Information Officer. It is his further grievance that the first and second respondents neither bothered to send a one line reply to his notice dated 1.11.2012 nor was there any reply from the third respondent on the petition filed under the Right to Information Act. However, finding no response for about 51 days, he is said to have filed an appeal petition dated 27.12.2012 under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act before the respondent University. Pursuant thereto, he was served with an evasive reply, after 60 days from the date of his petition, in violation of the deadline mandated under the Right to Information Act. Even that reply has not answered many of the questions. When the reply received from the third respondent indicated that the re-evaluated marks for the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders is also ''26'', the petitioner, aggrieved by the same, has filed the present writ petition with the aforementioned prayer.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, according to the petitioner, after the direction of this Court on 27.2.2013, the answer script of the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders was produced before the Court on 28.2.2013. On perusal of the said answer script, the petitioner found that he had been awarded 50 marks in the said subject paper on re-evaluation, however, on review, since the said 50 marks were reduced to 40 marks on second re-evaluation, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.2 of 2013 seeking permission to amend the prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring the re-evaluated marks 50 (i.e., the overall total of marks awarded for the five answers prior to the deliberate reduction by the incompetent person) found the Evaluator Section (Revaluation) of the original answer script as the final marks for the paper having subject code ''MLCA'' and titled ''Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders''.
4. Mr.S.Joseph Selvaraj, taking strength from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M.A.T.No.530 of 2011 dated 21.12.2011 (Averi Mukhopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and others), urged this Court to examine the answer script in order to ascertain whether the University has properly exercised its power and discretion while following the procedure and guidelines in respect of the re-evaluation of his subject paper. Again relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lilly Thomas v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 224 on the meaning of the word ''review'' by the Court, the petitioner submitted that it is an act of looking after something again with a view of correction or improvement. Therefore, in reviewing an answer script, the reviewing examiner is required to revisit and re-examine all the questions as if he is examining such question for the first time and it is only thereafter the said examiner can assess as to whether the original examiner has awarded the proper mark in respect of each of the questions. Adding further, he has stated that once the University has recognised the right of a student to demand review of his answer script, then the reviewing examiner should examine each of the answers as if he is examining the said answer script for the first time, but not mechanically.
5. Again pleading that when the right of the examinee to demand review of his answer script is not in dispute, when the three subject papers, namely, MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence were re-evaluated by the valuer at the instance of the petitioner and thereupon the marks after re-evaluation became 50, 50 and 50 respectively from the original marks of 40, 26 and 22 respectively, in the absence of any provision for review, no re-evaluation can be made by the Chairman of Board of Studies. Adding further, the petitioner argued that the University had been following the revaluation norms from April, 1993 for U.G. Degree examinations on the basis of Syndicate resolution dated 24.12.92, among other things, prescribing a procedure that any number of answer papers of the candidates who have appeared for the final year/final semester, for the first time, may be permitted for revaluation, irrespective of their attempts in the previous year examinations, provided the candidates complete the course within the prescribed period. However, the candidates should not have any arrear papers in the previous year/semester at the time of applying for revaluation for final year/final semester papers. The said norms also indicates that the decision of the revaluation committee consisting of two experts in each subject with Vice Chancellor as its Chairperson will be final. However, the University considered the additional norms for revaluation of answer papers for U.G. Degree examinations with effect from April, 1995 in the Syndicate meeting held on 8.9.95, prescribing that in respect of passed candidates, if the revised marks awarded after revaluation is higher, the revised marks will be the final one. For all others, the original marks will stand. In respect of failed candidates, if the marks awarded after revaluation is higher than the original marks and the character of the result alter, then only revaluation mark will stand. For all others the original marks will stand. The said additional revaluation norms also indicates that if the difference is more than ten marks, it should be referred to third valuation i.e., second revaluation and it may be done by the following persons viz., (a) Chairman, Board of Examiners along with the Head of the Department/Professor of the University Department and/or the senior teacher in the affiliated college and (b) if the Head of the Department/Professor is not available, the next senior person can be invited. Equally the marks awarded in the cases (more than 10 marks between original marks and RV mark) referred to third valuation i.e., second revaluation will be treated as final and the same will be communicated to the candidates and the recommendation of the Board of Examiners will be implemented wherever applicable. According to the petitioner, the University has been following the aforementioned revaluation norms, as approved by the Syndicate in its meeting on 8.9.95, only for the U.G. Degree examinations. But so far as the revaluation of answer scripts for P.G.Degree examinations is concerned, there is no such norms having been approved by the Syndicate of the University. Therefore, the revaluation of his subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders from the original 26 marks to 50 marks on revaluation, cannot be subjected to second revaluation in the absence of any revaluation norms having been approved by the Syndicate in respect of P.G. Degree examinations. On this basis, he prayed for a declaration declaring the re-evaluated marks 50, found in the Evaluator Section of the original answer script, as the final marks for the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders.
6. Again pinpointing to the mala fide intention on the part of the University in reducing the marks for the subject paper MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders from the 50 marks on revaluation to 40 marks on the ground of review, the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner applied for revaluation of the three subject papers, namely, MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence. After re-evaluation, the marks became 50, 50 and 50 respectively from the original marks of 40, 26 and 22 respectively. When the difference was more than ten marks in respect of MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject papers, the same were referred for review before the Chairman of Board of Studies who, on review, accepting the revaluation marks of 50 in respect of MLCD subject paper, however, revised the revaluation marks to 40 in respect of MLCA subject paper, keeping in mind that the petitioner had approached the respondents under the Right to Information Act, even without there being any provision for suo motu revaluation by the Chairman of Board of Studies. Finally the petitioner, challenging the power and authority of Prof.N.Balu on the ground that he is neither the Chairman nor a member so far as criminal law branch is concerned, stated that since Prof.N.Balu is not specialised in criminal law, without any authority, he has intentionally reduced the already awarded pass marks. Inasmuch as, as per the minutes of Board of Examiners, Dr.K.Vijayalakshmi, Professor is the Chairman of Board of Examiners so far as criminal law branch is concerned, similarly Dr.Devanathan, who is an Associate Professor, is a member, whereas Prof.N.Balu is neither the Chairman nor a member so far as criminal law branch is concerned, it was emphatically argued before this Court that Prof.N.Balu, who is not a specialised professor in criminal law subject, has no business at all to reduce the pass marks obtained by the petitioner in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of The President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another v. D.Suvankar and another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603, wherein it is held that it would be a mockery of the system of valuation of a teacher belonging to Arts stream is asked to evaluate the answer papers of Science stream. The said judgment further states that it may be that a teacher had Physics, Chemistry or Biology at the intermediate level, but at Graduation stage he had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a teacher to evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly, in the case of a teacher having Mathematics in intermediate level, while he took his high studies in Physics or Chemistry or Botany at the Graduation level, evaluation of answer paper in Mathematics by him would not be proper, even though he may be having working knowledge in the subject. However, the valuation should be done by an examiner who is well equipped in the subject. On this basis he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent University. Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had written the examination at the end of the first year in six subject papers and the results were published by the University on 24.8.2012 awarding the following marks:-
MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders - 26 MLCB- Juvenile Delinquency - 50 MLCC-Drug Addiction, Criminal Justice and Human Rights - 50 MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence - 22 MLZV-Constitutional New Challenges - 50 MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education - 40 The petitioner obtained pass marks in the subject papers, namely, MLCB-Juvenile Delinquency as 50 marks, MLCC-Drug Addiction, Criminal Justice and Human Rights as 50 marks and MLZV-Constitutional New Challenges as 50 marks. In the rest of the three subject papers, he obtained fail marks, namely, MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education subject paper as 40 marks, MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper as 26 marks and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject paper as 22 marks. In view of that, the petitioner filed a petition under the Right to Information Act asking for the copies of the answer scripts on 24.8.2012. Accordingly, he was furnished with the answer scripts on 10.10.2012. Simultaneously, he applied for revaluation on 25.8.2012 and the results of the revaluation was also given on 25.10.2012. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that when he applied for revaluation of the above three subject papers, he was awarded 50 marks on revaluation in all the three subjects, namely, in MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education subject paper, the re-evaluated marks became 50 from 40 (difference 10 marks), in MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper, the re-evaluated marks became 50 from 26 (difference 24 marks) and in MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject paper, the re-evaluated marks became 50 from 22 (difference 28 marks). Taking into account the vast variation of marks assigned in MLCA and MLCD subject papers and the marks on revaluation, the Chairman of the Board of Examiners, on the basis of the additional norms for revaluation of answer scripts which says that if the difference is more than 10 marks it should be referred to third valuation and it may be done by the following persons viz., Chairman, Board of Examiners along with the Head of the Department and if the Head of the Department is not available, the next senior person can be invited, the subject papers written by the petitioner viz., MLCA and MLCD subject papers were referred to the Chairman of Board of Studies who, on examination, reviewed the marks and allowed the same so far as the subject paper MLCD subject paper is concerned. However, the Chairman of Board of Studies revised the re-evaluated marks from 50 to 40 in respect of MLCA subject paper. Therefore, when the petitioner has accepted the re-evaluated marks in respect of MLZW and MLCD subject papers, he cannot question the re-evaluated marks so far as MLCA paper alone on surmises.
8. While answering the allegation of mala fide intention on the part of the University in revising the marks so far as the MLCA subject paper from 50 marks to 40 marks on the surmise that the petitioner had invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, she has stated that when the examinations were conducted by the University, on receipt of the answer scripts, by removal of the top slip attached to the answer scripts, the University officials give dummy numbers and thereafter the said papers are forwarded for central valuation, which is normally done in the premises of the University itself. After receiving all the answer scripts, the marks in the bottom slip in the space provided for entering the marks is transferred and entered by the examiners in the foil card and the said foil card containing the dummy number and the marks obtained by the candidate is entered by the examiner. Thereafter, the foil card is sent for entry in the computer section, where the section officials would enter the dummy number and the marks and the check list is also forwarded to the concerned department. Only thereafter the marks secured by the candidates with their dummy numbers are circulated before the Board of Examiners for their consideration and approval. It is only at this point of time the marks are moderated by the recommendation of the examiners taking into account the totality of the question paper and the answers provided by the students. Thereafter, the dummy numbers are matched to the register numbers of the candidates. Finally, the results are published in the original register numbers. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance so far as this procedure is concerned, as the University is not expected to act in variance to the norms. Since the respondent University has done the exercise in accordance with law, the allegation of mala fide intention is wholly ill-founded. On this basis she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Coming to the contention of the petitioner for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, by relying upon the counter affidavit, the learned counsel stated that the petition for amendment is not maintainable in law, since, if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then the process of valuation or revaluation can never be completed by the University, as there is a high dearth of qualified faculties for the subjects so far as the correction of answer scripts is concerned. It was further contended that the revaluation is ordered subject to the availability of concerned examiners and even if the concerned examiner, on the revaluation date, is not present, without an option, the Chairman of the Board of Studies, who is fully qualified to cause the revaluation, can again cause revaluation and review also can be undertaken by the Chairman of the Board of Studies notwithstanding the fact that he is not the Board of Examiners for the subject and only for the reason that he is qualified and competent to correct the papers, as this exercise has been approved by the University. On this basis, she prayed for no order in the M.P.No.2 of 2013.
10. Heard both sides.
11. The petitioner, having got admission to M.L. Degree course during the year 2011-12 with criminal law as the specialised subject, appeared for the examinations at the end of first year for the following six papers and obtained the marks indicated therein:-
MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders - 26 MLCB- Juvenile Delinquency - 50 MLCC-Drug Addiction, Criminal Justice and Human Rights - 50 MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence - 22 MLZV-Constitutional New Challenges - 50 MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education - 40 In respect of the six subject papers in the first year non semester examination conducted by the respondent University, the pass mark is fixed as 50 marks in each of the subjects. But the petitioner secured 50 marks in the three subject papers, namely, MLCB-Juvenile Delinquency, MLCC-Drug Addiction, Criminal Justice and Human Rights and MLZV-Constitutional New Challenges. However, in the rest of the three subject papers viz., MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence, he secured only 40 marks, 26 marks and 22 marks respectively. In view of that, he made an application under the Right to Information Act requesting for supply of the answer scripts on 24.8.2012 and also applied for revaluation for the said three subject papers viz., MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence. It is also an admitted fact that after revaluation, the respondents had awarded 50 marks for MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence paper from 22 marks, indeed 28 marks were added. For MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education, after revaluation, he was awarded 50 marks from 40 marks, namely, 10 marks were added. Similarly, in MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders paper also, he was awarded 50 marks from 26 marks, namely, 24 marks, over and above the original marks. The respondent University also in its Syndicate meeting held on 8.9.95, after considering the additional norms for revaluation of answer scripts for U.G. Degree examination with effect from April, 1995, resolved to have the following additional norms for revaluation of answer scripts with effect from 1995 examinations. The relevant additional norms for revaluation of answer scripts from April, 1995 are extracted as follows:-
1. In respect of passed candidates, if the revised marks awards after revaluation is higher, the revised marks will be the final one. For all others, the original marks will stand.
2. In respect of failed candidates, if the marks awarded after revaluation is higher than the original marks and the character of the result alter, then only revaluation mark will stand. For all others the original marks will stand.
3. If the difference is more than ten marks, it should be referred to THIRD valuation i.e., SECOND REVALUATION and it may be done by the following persons.
(a) Chairman, Board of Examiners along with the Head of the Department/Professor of the University Department and/or the senior teacher in the affiliated college.
(b) if the Head of the Department/Professor is not available, the next senior person can be invited.
4. In case of B.E., if the University Professor is not available, Professor next in Senior Grade will be invited from IIT/MIT/Anna University. The Chairman of Board Examiners should value with a senior teacher from IIT/MIT/Anna University and/or teacher in the affiliated college.
5. The marks awarded in the cases (more than 10 marks between original marks and RV mark) referred to THIRD valuation i.e., Second Revaluation will be treated as FINAL and the same will be communicated to the candidates.
6. The recommendation of the Board of Examiners will be implemented wherever applicable.
12. A mere reading of the additional norms clearly indicates that in respect of passed candidates if the revised marks awarded after revaluation is found higher, the revised marks will be final one. However, in respect of failed candidates, if the marks awarded in the revaluation is higher than the original marks and the character of the result is altered, then the revaluation mark will stand. However, if the difference is more than 10 marks, it should be referred to third valuation viz., second revaluation and the same is being done by the following persons:-
(a) Chairman, Board of Examiners along with the Head of the Department/Professor of the University Department and/or the senior teacher in the affiliated college.
(b) if the Head of the Department/Professor is not available, the next senior person can be invited.'' It must be kept in mind that the revaluation norms approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 8.9.95 in the University premises no doubt indicate that these norms are applicable for U.G. Degree examinations with effect from April, 1995. However, the respondent University has been following the same mutatis mutandis not only for U.G. Degree examinations, but also for P.G. Degree examinations as well. In the light of the above additional revaluation norms, admittedly, when the petitioner applied for revaluation of the three subject papers, namely, MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education, MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence from the original marks of 40, 26 and 22 respectively, he secured 50, 50 and 50 marks on revaluation, the difference in marks being 10, 24 and 28 respectively. Since clause-3 of the additional norms for revaluation of the answer scripts refers to third valuation viz., second revaluation and it must be done by the following persons, namely, the Chairman, Board of Examiners along with the Head of the Department and if the Head of the Department is not available the next senior person, the respondent University, having seen that the difference of marks is more than 10, rightly referred the MLCA-Criminology, Penology & the Treatment of Offenders and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject papers for third valuation, namely, second revaluation. The petitioner, having accepted the revaluation marks for the subject papers MLZW-Methodology and Legal Education and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence papers, is aggrieved only by the review of revaluation marks from 50 to 40 in respect of MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper alone in this writ petition, on the ground that as per the minutes of the Board of Examiners, Dr.K.Vijayalakshmi, Professor, who is the Chairman of Board of Examiners so far as the criminal law branch is concerned, should have valued the paper, whereas Prof.N.Balu who is neither the Chairman nor a member, should not have valued, as he is not specialised in criminal law subject, is far from acceptance, for, Prof.N.Balu has acquired Ph.D., in Law and had guided five candidates for acquiring Ph.D., in Criminal Law. Moreover, the additional norms for revaluation of answer scripts clearly mention that if the difference is more than 10 marks, it should be referred to third valuation viz., second revaluation and the same may be done by the Chairman, Board of Studies along with the Head of the Department or the senior teacher in the affiliated college. Further, the additional norms for revaluation clearly says that if there is a difference of more than 10 marks between the original marks and revaluation marks, the same should be referred to third valuation viz., second revaluation and the marks awarded by the Chairman, Board of Examiners will be final. As highlighted above, when the petitioner has accepted the re-evaluated marks of 50 and 50 in MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject papers from the original marks of 40 and 22 respectively, he cannot be permitted to challenge the re-evaluated marks of 40 in the MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper alone on surmises. Moreover, the record shows that the University has given dummy numbers to ensure confidentiality in the valuation of answer scripts. Therefore, it is hard to believe the allegation of mala fide levelled against the respondents that only for the reason the petitioner had filed a petition under the Right to Information Act he has been victimized by the valuer while re-evaluating his MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper, when he has accepted the re-evaluation marks of 50 each in the MLZW-Research Methodology and Legal Education and MLCD-Privileged Class Deviance and Collective Violence subject papers from the original marks of 40 and 22 respectively.
13. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner, as the University has properly exercised its power and discretion while following the procedure and guidelines in respect of the re-evaluation of MLCA-Criminology, Penology and the Treatment of Offenders subject paper written by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are also dismissed. No costs.
Index : yes/no 03.06.2014
Internet : yes
ss
To
1. The Registrar
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The Controller of Examinations
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3. The Public Information Officer
University of Madras
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
T.RAJA, J.
ss
Order in
W.P.No.2697 of 2013
03.06.2014