Karnataka High Court
Rekha Vishwanath Ganachari vs Registrar (Evaluation) on 16 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: ILR1993KAR1238, 1993(2)KARLJ5
ORDER Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. Rule.
2. The petitioner has sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-University to produce the answer book of the petitioner pertaining to the Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act of II Year LL.B., held in April/May 1992 bearing Reg.No. 873274 in order to justify the award of marks by the re-valuer in accordance with the scheme of valuation and to grant such other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The material facts are that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Commerce from the University of Poona, Pune and secured her M.Com., degree in 'B' Grade i.e., Second Class in the year 1980. She took admission to the I Year LL.B. course in K.L.E.Society's evening Law College, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, on 13.8.1986. The petitioner has passed all subjects in the 1st Year LL.B., and all subjects in the Illrd Year LL.B. in one attempt at the examination held in April 1989. The petitioner has passed in all the five subjects of the II Year LL.B., except the subject Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trusts Act. She has appeared in the subject Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act for five times since April 1988 with Reg.No. 873274. She had secured in the examination held in April 1992, 26 out of 100. The petitioner has stated that she has done extremely well in III Paper of Transfer of Property Act including the Indian Trusts Act in April/May 1992 of II Year LL.B. examination. But the petitioner was shocked to know that she has been awarded 26 marks out of 100 in Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act and copy of the marks card issued by the University is produced and marked as Annexure-B. The petitioner immediately after the announcement of the results has applied for revaluation in the subject Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act by paying prescribed fee of Rs.200/-. But unfortunately the respondent-University has declared the petitioner's result in Transfer of Property Act as 'No Change' by its Notification NO.EX.V-B/LL.B./REV.RESULTS/1992-93, dated 12.10.1992, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. Hence, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the revaluation result in Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trusts Act of II Year LL.B. examination held in the month of April/May 1992 so far as it relates to Reg.No. 873274.
4. The petitioner claims that she has done well in the examination and has a right to receive a fair play in the examination and get appropriate marks matching with the performance in accordance with the scheme of valuation. It is contended that there was neither proper valuation nor re-valuation. In other words re-valuation is reduced to mechanical process rather than actual revaluation of the paper. In any case, the re-valuation was not bonafide, as it was mechanical, and method adopted for re-valuation was arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and suffers from non-application of mind of the examiner to answers given by the petitioner in her answer books to questions under the Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act, in April 1992.
5. The respondent-University appears through the Counsel and filed Objection Statement wherein it is contended that the University entrusts the work of valuation work to its approved Board of Examiners, who are experts in the respective subjects. Regarding revaluation, it is stated that the procedure adopted by the University is that if a student applies for revaluation, the answer scripts should be sent to the Examiner for revaluation without disclosing the marks awarded by the first valuer in the answer script. He will also be supplied with the marks list to enable him to assess the marks and to write in the column provided for in the marks list for each question. After the revaluation, if the University finds the difference of marks obtained by a student is more than 15 marks between the first valuation and the second valuation, then the University sends the answer scripts for third valuation to the Examiner and whatever marks awarded by the third valuer will be the final. If the difference of marks is less than 15, then there will be no third valuation and the result would be announced as per the marks obtained by the student in the second valuation. Hence, the revaluation marks will not be entered in the answer script but the same will be entered at a separate marks list provided by the University. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has no legal right to seek for quashing of the results and the direction to the University to revalue the answer book of the petitioner in the said subject since it has already been revalued and the same is binding on the petitioner. It is also contended that there is no provision in the University for revaluation of the re-valued answer scripts.
6. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court directed the respondent-University, through its Counsel to produce the original answer papers of the petitioner which was re-valued by the concerned examiner. The answer paper and the marks list showing the marks given against each question in the revaluation were produced by the respondent's Counsel in Court. On perusal of the original answer paper, I found the marks awarded against each answer in the answer paper by the first valuation by the examiner were all closed as not to be visible to the re-valuer. It is perfectly in order to prevent the re-valuer being not influenced by the first valuation assessment and valuation of the answer paper. But there is nothing to show or indicate that the re-valuer has valued the answer paper by giving marks against each answers. When I asked the respondent's Counsel, is there anything to show in the answer paper that it was gone through by the re-valuer and gave marks on the basis of assessment and valuation of answer; he replied there is none, but in the marks list the marks given against each question, and as per which there is no improvement except the petitioner got few more marks, which is not sufficient to refer it to the third re-valuer. I did ask the respondent's Counsel whether there is any Rule or guidelines issued by the respondent-University as to the re-valuation of papers, to which the respondent's Counsel answered there is none. Except as to what is stated in the Objection Statement that if on revaluation of the paper, the difference in marks is more than 15 marks between the first valuation and second valuation, then the University sends the answer scripts to the third valuer, and whatever the marks awarded by the third valuer will be final. Thus, it is conceded that there is re-valuation and third re-valuation, in the circumstances "stated above. The question is whether the examiner appointed in this case for re-valuation has in fact revalued and that re-valuation is in compliance with the Rules or methods adopted for valuation.
7. The valuation means the act of estimating the value of a thing or assigned work or put a value on or appraise. This act of valuation could be done by signing a note on a thing valued. As per the procedure and method adopted for the valuation, the Examiners signify a note as to the marks awarded to each answer valued by him, When there is no separate Rules or method for re-valuation, the method or the procedure adopted for valuation is the only method for re-valuation. Virtually, there could be no different method for re-valuation than the one adopted for valuation. In the instant case, there is nothing to show, that the examiner has put any signifying note of awarding marks against the answers to indicate that he has valued or appraised the answers in the answer paper. Writing down in a separate sheet of marks list as to the awarding marks against the number of questions, is no appreciation or valuation of answer paper of the petitioner.
8. It is apparent that the Examiner appointed for re-valuation who is stated to have revalued the answers of the petitioner has not awarded the marks against the answers in the answer paper, but only shown an awarded marks to the questions indicated in the separate marks list. There is nothing to show that there are marks awarded to the answers in the answer papers of the petitioner after appraising the value of each answer. The method adopted in the process of re-valuation is arbitrary and lacks rational justification. It, in fact, suffers from non-application of mind by the Examiner to the answers of the answer paper of the petitioner.
9. When the valuation of answer paper by the Examiner is to be done in a certain way, in the absence of any different method for revaluation, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Any other mode of performance is necessarily forbidden. The exercise of mode of valuation other than what is provided will be violative of principles of natural justice.
10. In the light of the observations made above, I am of the firm view that the revaluation made by the examiner in respect of answer paper of the petitioner pertaining to Transfer of Property Act including the Indian Trust Act, is invalid and deserves to be declared as void and not tenable in law.
11. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:-
ORDER The Writ Petition is allowed. It is declared that the Notification, Annexure-C, dated 12.10.1992 issued by the respondent-University, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is void. The respondent-University is directed to appoint another examiner to re-value the answer paper of the petitioner in the light of the above observation and it shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Rule made absolute.