Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The respondent Dibrugarh University and its Officers filed their joint affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that the marks after re-evaluation has been awarded to the petitioners in terms of Clauses-6 and 7 of Annexure-1 to the 1972 Ordinance, which stipulates the procedure to be followed for re-evaluation and cognate matters. According to the respondents Clause-6 of Annexure-1 to the said Ordinance is not at all arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, which provision has been incorporated pursuant to the policy decision of the University in regard to the re-evaluation of answer scripts keeping in view the greater academic interest as well as the interest of the students and to avoid subjective assessment of answer scripts.

8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties received our due consideration. The Clause-70 of the 1972 Ordinance provides for re-evaluation of answer scripts. It provides that a candidate may apply for re-evaluation of any answer scripts of any theory paper, subject to a maximum of 2(two) papers in the examination, where the candidate had appeared, subject to payment of the prescribed fee and filing application for such re- evaluation within a period of 20 days from the date of publication of results. Proviso to said Clause stipulates that the procedure to be followed for re-evaluation and cognate matters shall be laid down as Annexure-1 of the Ordinance. For sake of convenience Clause-70 of 1972 Ordinance is quoted below:-

"(6) An answer-script for re-evaluation shall be examined by one examiner in both TDC and PG Examination and the average of marks awarded by the Original Examiner and Re-evaluation Examiner shall be the final marks."

10. From the aforesaid provisions of the 1972 Ordinance, it is, therefore, evident that an examinee can ask for re-evaluation of answer scripts, subject to maximum of 2(two) papers. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that the petitioners pursuant to Clause-70 of 1972 Ordinance applied for re-evaluation of certain answer scripts, as permissible under such Ordinance and were allotted marks on such re-evaluation by taking average of the marks awarded by the original examiner as well as by the re- evaluation examiner, by virtue of the procedure laid down in Annexure-1 to such Ordinance for re-evaluation, more particularly in Clause-6 thereof. The applicability of the provision of Clause-70 of 1972 Ordinance has not been disputed by any of the parties.

12. Clause-6 of Annexure-1 of 1972 Ordinance, as noticed above, provides for taking of the average of the marks awarded by the original examiner and re-evaluation examiner, for the purpose of ascertaining the marks secured by an examinee on such re- evaluation. The purpose for which the provisions for re-evaluation has been incorporated in the Ordinance would not be achieved if such average of the marks secured by the candidate is allowed to be taken as the marks secured on such re-evaluation, the process of re-evaluation being to rectify the mistake that has been committed by the original examiner in awarding the marks in respect of the answer scripts in question. The said provision in Clause-6 is also arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and violate the Constitutional mandate of Article 14, as is sought to create an unreasonable classification amongst the examinees of a particular examination, as a class is sought to be created in respect of the examinees whose answer scripts have not been properly scrutinized by the original examiner and the examinees whose answer scripts have been scrutinized by the original examiner properly. Such classification is not permissible as it was not the fault of the examinees, whose answer scripts have not been properly scrutinized by the original examiner. Such a Clause is also unreasonable and arbitrary as an examinee, who deserves certain marks in an answer script is sought to be deprived from the same by making provision for taking the average of the marks awarded to such examinee by the original examiner and by the re-evaluation examiner. For example, suppose the original examiner in respect of the answer to a particular question has wrongly awarded „0‟ marks though he is entitled to 10 marks, can he be awarded 5 marks by taking average of the marks awarded by the original examiner and the marks awarded by the re-evaluation examiner? The answer is obviously „No‟. If such a procedure is allowed to be followed, it would amount to depriving the examinee from his due i.e. from the marks to which he is entitled to, which in any case cannot be the purpose of re-evaluation of an answer script. The contention of the respondents that such a Clause has been incorporated to avoid the subjective assessment of the answer scripts, in view of the aforesaid discussion, cannot at all be accepted.