Karnataka High Court
Yashaswini. V vs The Department Of Pre University ... on 17 August, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
Writ Petition No. 35608/2017 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN
YASHASWINI.V
D/O VENKATAMUNI SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
2ND PUC STUDENT, NO.12,
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
GOWDANAPALYA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560061. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DANAPPA. P. PANIBHATE - ADV.)
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION KARNATAKA
REPD. BY ITS DIRECTOR
EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
PUE BUILDING, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR, HCGP)
***
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PUBLICATION OF LAST DATE OF 3.8.2017 FOR ONLINE
APPLICATION FOR SCANNED COPY/ REVALUATION/ RE-
TOTALING ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
2. The petitioner is a student of II year pre-university course and she had taken up supplementary examination held in the month of June, 2017 and after the declaration of the results in the month of July 2017, she has applied for issuance of marks card. The results were uploaded onto the website and upon verification she found that she has secured 36 marks in Physics subject and has se cured pass marks in all the other subjects. Hence she applied for copies of the answer sheets vide application dated 26.7.2017 and the requisite fee was paid vide challan bearing No.1354221001 dated 26.7.2017. It is stated that the petitioner was under the impression that the copy of the answer sheets would be furnished to her and was eagerly waiting for the same in order to peruse the same and to decide whether to seek revaluation of the answer scripts or not. Despite several attempts, she was not furnished with the copies and only on 3.8.2017 she was intimated that the copies of the answer scripts were made 3 available online and that she could take out copies of the answer scripts on 4.8.2017. Immediately she approached the respondent office and after verification being dissatisfied with the marks awarded, she immediately approached the office of the respondent so as to apply for revaluation. It was intimated to her that the last date for seeking revaluation was 3.8.2017 and as she had approached beyond the stipulated date, it was not possible for the respondent to accept the application.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that refusal to receive the application for revaluation is violative of the candidate's rights and that the respondent failed to appreciate the fact that the student had passed in all the subjects and also failed to appreciate the deficient approach of the valuator in awarding low marks.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the answer scripts are revalued, the petitioner would secure more marks in the said subject and would successfully complete the II PU course. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 4 the necessary fee as stipulated by the University and that no hardship would be caused to the University if the respondent is directed to revalue the answer script of the petitioner as it is carrying out revaluation of several hundreds of other students.
5. Per contra, the learned AGA would submit that the last date for applying for revaluation has lapsed on 3.8.2017. He would fairly admit that if the respondent is directed to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner's physics paper, it would not cause any undue hardship but it would be violative of the notification by the respondent stipulating the last date for making the application seeking revaluation.
6. It is seen that the petitioner is a youngster and desirous of pursuing her academic carrier and has also obtained pass marks in other subjects except in the Physics subject. It is also not in dispute that the University would be revaluating thousands of answer scripts and if a direction is issued by this Court directing the University to receive and revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner, no hardship would be caused to the 5 respondent but on the other hand if relief is denied, the petitioner by default would be forced to miss-out a considerable period in the academic year.
This Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is of the considered opinion that the relief sought for by the petitioner is equitable and in the circumstances and in the light of the explanation offered that she was unaware of the publication of the answer scripts on the website is accepted and hence the petitioner is entitled to an equitable relief at the hands of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent to receive the application of the petitioner for revaluation without reference to the last date stipulated under Annexure-E for revaluation and payment of requisite fee and shall re-evaluate the answer scripts in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall make an application and pay the requisite fee by 18.8.2017. It is made clear that if such an application is not filed and if the requisite fee is not 6 remitted within the date stipulated above, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the relief granted.
The operative portion of the order to be furnished to the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent today.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs