Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The Director, MAMC, it appears wrote back on 08.08.2019 to the Deputy Director (Examinations) that the paper had been checked properly and that the marks had been added "now" in the inside sheets of the subject paper and, therefore, there was no change in the marks accorded to the petitioner.

6. Mr. Rupal says that this procedure of examining answer sheets is perfectly in order.

7. On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the MCI, submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, what had been observed by this court on 11.09.2019 would be the more robust and/or appropriate method of moving forward in the matter. 7.1. In other words, Mr. Singhdev's submission is that the concerned answer sheet should have been evaluated by an independent examiner to eschew likelihood of bias and not by the same examiner who had committed the error.

13. I am thus, unable to persuade myself that approach adopted by the University of Delhi is correct. I tend to agree with the submissions of Mr. Singhdev that the concerned examination paper needs to be examined by an independent evaluator. There is without doubt a tendency on the part of a person be it an examiner or anyone else who has made a mistake to justify his approach which is found fault with. Moreover, even if I were to assume that the marks now entered in the inside sheets of the concerned examination paper are correct, the petitioner will carry a lingering doubt as to the examiner's objectivity in the matter. The test, in my opinion, is not whether the examiner, in point of fact, displayed objectivity, the test which ought to be applied is whether the petitioner in these circumstances would carry the impression that the examiner would be unable to display objectivity.